Answer Questions

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Collaborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda for academic inquiry

Hyejune Park | Cosette Marie Joyner Armstrong

Department of Design, Housing and

Merchandising, Oklahoma State University,

442 Human Sciences, Stillwater, Oklahoma,

74078-6142

Correspondence

Hyejune Park, Department of Design,

Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma

State University, 442 Human Sciences,

Stillwater, OK 74078-6142.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract While apparel businesses leveraging the sharing economy have begun to emerge in recent years,

academic research on “sharing” consumption for apparel is extremely limited. To fill this research

gap, the researchers analyze current literature to present a conceptual framework that offers a

durable theoretical foundation about the concept of collaborative consumption for apparel. Using

a metatheory approach, the researchers develop a framework that explores how two major

Internet-supported collaborative consumption modes (utility-based nonownership and redistrib-

uted ownership) manifest in an apparel context. Next, the researchers explore the implications of

each consumption mode to understand the consumer’s relationship with the product, peers, and

businesses involved in these sharing schemes. A series of research propositions are also developed

to stimulate discussion and future research about collaborative apparel consumption.

K E Y W O R D S

apparel consumption, collaborative consumption, sharing economy, sharing

1 | INTRODUCTION

The sharing economy has emerged via the collaboration of consumers

who “share” otherwise underutilized resources ranging from everyday

goods (e.g., cars, toys, clothes) to nonproduct assets (e.g., space, skills)

for monetary or nonmonetary benefits, mainly through the Internet

(Belk, 2014a). The marketplace has begun to facilitate this consumer

behavior in the sharing economy; many companies flourishing in recent

years in a variety of industries, such as housing (e.g., Airbnb,

Homeaway), transportation (e.g., Lyft, Uber) and consumer goods (e.g.,

Tradesy, Rent the Runway). According to industry reports, US revenues

generated from the sharing economy in 2013 was an estimated $3.5

billion (Geron, 2013), and 23% of US consumers in the same year used

at least one of the “sharing” sites or apps (Owyang, Samuel, &

Grenville, 2014). Some argue that this economy has been partly fueled

by a growing concern over the ecological and social impacts of con-

sumption, because sharing resources is considered more sustainable

than buying and accumulating (Hamari, Sj€oklint, & Ukkonen, 2015).

Apparel business leveraging the sharing economy, such as swap-

ping (e.g.,Listia), renting (e.g., Bag Borrow or Steal, Rent the Runway)

and resale businesses (e.g., Tradesy, Vinted) have begun to emerge in

recent years. However, academic research on “sharing” consumption,

termed collaborative consumption in this study, in the context of appa-

rel is extremely limited. Although several researchers have investigated

these alternative consumption modes, the majority of these studies are

conducted in the context of some other industry sectors, such as auto-

mobiles (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Fishman, Washington, & Haworth,

2013; Schaefers, Lawson, & Kukar-Kinney, 2015), vacation spaces

(Tussyadiah, 2015), and toys (Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010), where the

nature of consumption may be considerably different from that of

apparel goods. For instance, while renting a car or a bicycle may be

mainly driven by consumers’ utilitarian purpose, renting designer bags

and shoes may be more emotional in nature and motivated by consum-

ers’ hedonic purposes, such as expressing one’s individuality. Yet, little

is known about how apparel consumers navigate and experience such

systems, or how these experiences are distinct (or not) from those with

other products and from more traditional forms of apparel consump-

tion. In addition, given the variety of relevant consumption practices

across a wide range of market-facilitated offerings, it is necessary to

develop a domain-specific (e.g., clothes, cars, spaces) definition of such

consumption behavior and to explore these consumption experiences

within this domain.

Guided by the framework of multilevel consumption (FMC) pro-

posed by Chen (2009), a new theoretical framework for understanding

the phenomenon of collaborative apparel consumption is proposed is

this study. FMC suggests that consumers form multilevel relationships

Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41:465–474. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs VC 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 465

Received: 13 September 2016 | Revised: 27 February 2017 | Accepted: 10 March 2017 DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12354

bs_bs_banner

with consumed objects; arguing that consumers first form relationships

with products based on their desires (e.g., desires regarding clothing

and fashion) and then consume products either through possession

(e.g., purchasing clothes) or access (e.g., renting clothes). As Chen

(2009) noted, FMC can be applied to the products that can be both

possessed and accessed; thus it is useful in building a framework of col-

laborative apparel consumption where both possession and access

occur in the current marketplace. This framework demonstrates that

possession is not the only way to establish a relationship with an

object, and consumers can decide whether to possess or maintain

access only based on their different desires. Future study of this rela-

tionship will provide important consumer behavior insights. Drawing

upon FMC, the purpose of this study is to present a theoretical frame-

work that offers an account of collaborative consumption of apparel,

providing a durable theoretical foundation for discussion and future

research about these new, alternative consumption modes by propos-

ing a series of testable research propositions. Metatheory provided

conceptual schemes and definitions in understanding the phenomenon

of collaborative apparel consumption.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 | Collaborative consumption and sharing

While collaborative consumption is a new phenomenon in the digital

era, sharing has been around since the beginning of mankind (Belk,

2010). In his seminal work on sharing, Belk (2010) examines the nature

of consumer sharing by offering a theoretical review of the construct.

Defining sharing as “the act and process of distributing what is ours to

others for their use as well as the act and process of receiving some-

thing from others for our use” (ibid, p. 127). Belk provides three main

distinctions for sharing versus gift giving or a commodity exchange:

perception of joint ownership, pro-social intentions, and the absence of

the expectation for direct reciprocity. First, unlike commodity exchange

and gift giving, sharing does not involve transfer of ownership; rather,

shared things are jointly owned. Second, sharing demonstrates pro-

social intention and is characterized as love, caring, and a communal

activity that links people to others, as described in its prototypes,

mothering or the pooling and allocation of household resources. Third,

sharing does not impose any obligation of reciprocity whereas this is

not the case for commodity exchange and gift giving.

As the sharing economy has recently facilitated a variety of new

“sharing” consumption activities, researchers have explored a variety of

related concepts like collaborative consumption (Belk, 2010, Botsman

& Rogers, 2010; Hellwig, Morhart, & Girardin, 2015; Ozanne &

Ballantine, 2010), sharing (Belk, 2014a), or access-based consumption

(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Schaefers et al., 2015). With many different

terms and meanings surrounding this alternative consumption mode,

there is a need to accurately define, categorize and evaluate the vari-

ous consumption models. Belk (2014a) delineates the conceptual

boundary of traditional sharing and the new sharing activities that

occur in the digital sharing economy. He notes that many consumption

activities that are currently described as “sharing” are not true sharing

and are better described as pseudo-sharing. According to his early defi-

nition of sharing (Belk, 2014b), for example, short-term rental (e.g., car

rental) is not true sharing, as consumers pay a usage fee. Even in the

absence of fees, he contends that the involvement of a commercial

organization reduces the sense of true sharing among members.

To better delineate the concept of these new sharing activities

mainly facilitated by the Internet, Belk (2014a) uses the term, collabora-

tive consumption, and defines it as “people coordinating the acquisition

and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation”

(p. 1597). By including a fee or other compensation, this definition dis-

tinguishes traditional sharing or gift giving where monetary or nonmon-

etary compensation is involved (Belk, 2010). He also distinguishes this

definition from several other similar terms. For instance, Belk (2010)

argues that Botsman and Rogers’ (2010) definition of collaborative con-

sumption, which includes “traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trad-

ing, renting, gifting, and swapping,” is too broad and potentially

confusing in that it mixes marketplace exchange, gift giving, and sharing

for which the characteristics of each vary. Belk (2014a) also differenti-

ates collaborative consumption from another similar concept, access-

based consumption, as defined by Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012): transac-

tions that may be market mediated in which no transfer of ownership

takes place. Belk indicates that this definition involves no transfer of

ownership and thus excludes consumption modes such as trading and

swapping where transfer of ownership does take place.

2.2 | Collaborative consumption of apparel

Based on the literature, this article is solely focused around collabora-

tive consumption as defined by Belk (2014a): People coordinating the

acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensa-

tion, which may include, trading, bartering, or swapping activities,

where giving and receiving may include nonmonetary exchange. This

definition best explains the consumption activities facilitated by the

current apparel “sharing” businesses, including clothes-swapping, rent-

ing, and resale businesses via online platforms. Under the umbrella of

collaborative consumption as defined by Belk (2014a), two distinct

consumption modes appear highly relevant to the context of apparel.

One involves only the access to or utility of a material good by a cus-

tomer (Reim, Parida, & €Ortqvist, 2014) while the other mode involves

the personal ownership of a redistributed, second-hand good (Botsman

& Rogers, 2010). Notably, neither consumption mode necessarily

involves the production and sale of a new material good. Observations

of the currently available business models of collaborative apparel con-

sumption (discussed later) were compulsory in this case to provide veri-

fication of these two categories of collaborative consumption types.

3 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study builds on the framework of multilevel consumption (FMC)

that separates the consumption modes (possession and access) from

the consumption object (Chen, 2009). FMC challenges the traditional

presupposition that possession is the only way to establish a relation-

ship with an object and contends that consumers can choose to

466 | bs_bs_banner

PARK AND ARMSTRONG

possess or “access” depending on their different desires. Chen (2009)

explores this conjecture using the two empirical concepts, consumer

desires and perceived values. Specifically, she finds that, in the context

of art collection and exhibit visits, consumers who desire a long-term,

intimate relationship with the artworks choose possession (i.e., art col-

lection) whereas consumers who desire a circumstantial relationship

choose access (i.e., exhibit visits). Regardless of their chosen consump-

tion mode, both collectors and visitors share some common desire

toward art, such as philanthropy, spirituality, aesthetics, and novelty.

Chen (2009) also finds that, while collectors and visitors perceive some

similar values, such as otherness (e.g., to be in a different world) and

aesthetics, they have different perceived values after their consump-

tion experiences. For example, collectors perceive the value of preser-

vation (i.e., preservation of artworks) whereas exhibit visitors perceive

the value of forgetfulness of time and memory.

While FMC was developed based on the context of art collection

and exhibit visits, Chen (2009) suggests that it can be further developed

within other contexts where consumers can either purchase or rent prod-

ucts. Based on FMC, the two primary collaborative consumption modes

highlighted in this study (i.e., utility-based nonownership, redistributed

ownership) can be compared and contrasted to traditional ownership. In

the current study, rather than limiting the exploration of factors to only

desires and values, the researchers took a more holistic approach to con-

ceptualizing these two consumption modes. Many researchers have fre-

quently asserted that engaging in collaborative consumption may

transform the consumer’s relationship with the product, with the relevant

others who are involved in the sharing scheme (peers), and with the serv-

ice provider (business) when contrasted with traditional personal owner-

ship (e.g., Belk, 2007, 2014a; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister,

2014; Chen, 2009). Therefore, these relationships are at the center of this

investigation, and the FMC has been adapted to explore a wider range of

factors embodied within these three focal areas: consumer–product, con-

sumer–consumer, and consumer–business relationships. Figure 1 depicts

the extended FMC that guided data analysis in the current study.

4 | METHODS

4.1 | Metatheory approach

To develop a conceptual framework for collaborative apparel consump-

tion, existing theories and their use were examined from various rele-

vant bodies of literature that have been implicated in collaborative

consumption and other related topics. A metatheory approach was

used to analyze primary studies for the implications of their theoretical

orientations and to create a series of research propositions. Meta-

theory is a critical exploration of the theoretical frameworks or lenses

that have provided direction to research as well as the theory that has

arisen from research in a particular field of study (Paterson, Thorne,

Canam, & Jillings, 2001). Specifically, the researchers followed six steps

delineated in Reflexive Dimensional Analysis (RDA), one of the meth-

odologies developed specifically for metatheory (Wallis, 2010). Wallis

(2010) asserts that RDA allows researchers to take a more complex

and rigorous approach in identifying related propositions and determin-

ing the link between the theoretical perspectives that frame each pri-

mary study. The six steps of RDA include: (a) define a body of theory,

(b) investigate the literature to identify the concepts that define it, (c)

code the concepts to identify relevant components, (d) clump the com-

ponents into mutually exclusive categories, (e) define each category as

a dimension, and (f) investigate those dimensions through the literature,

looking for robust relationships.

Guided by this metatheoretical process, first, a phenomenon of

collaborative apparel consumption was defined with the two primary

collaborative consumption modes based on the literature [Step a].

Next, three aforementioned relationships (i.e., consumer–product, con-

sumer–consumer, consumer–company relationships) extended the

FMC, and the literature was investigated within these three focal areas

[Step b]. The researchers then coded the data and collected a number

of constructs along with various collaborative consumption modes that

can be differentiated [Step c and d]. A total of six constructs were

explored within a relevant relationship to compare and contrast collab-

orative apparel consumption to traditional ownership [Step e and f]. A

systematic content analysis was conducted in the area of collaborative

consumption and other related concepts including collaborative con-

sumption, sharing, access-based consumption, product-service systems,

and social innovation.

Though some areas of this literature, such as access-based consump-

tion and social innovation, are still relatively thin, especially in regards to

apparel, these studies nevertheless provide foundational knowledge on

which to build stronger, more durable theory for the future. The pro-

posed collaborative consumption modes are continuously compared and

contrasted to the traditional ownership mode to provide clarity and dis-

tinction. Throughout the process, the researchers monitored the work to

be sure that the research was conducted systematically and comprehen-

sively and that multiple perspectives were identified.

4.2 | Consumption mode verification

Actual collaborative apparel consumption businesses were examined

to verify the typology of collaborative apparel consumption pro-

posed in the literature review. Businesses for collaborative apparel

consumption were selected as follows: first, a pool of current busi-

nesses that could be broadly classified as collaborative consumption

companies for apparel were researched online. Given the lack of a

clear definition of collaborative consumption, the researchers used

Collaborative apparel consumption

• Utility-based non ownership • Redistributed ownership

Traditional ownership-based apparel consumption

Consumer-Product relationship

Consumer-Consumer relationship

Consumer-Business relationship

FIGURE 1 Research framework: extended framework of multilevel consumption (FMC)

PARK AND ARMSTRONG bs_bs_banner

| 467

the following multiple search keywords: collaborative consumption,

sharing economy, and collaborative economy, with a coordinating

descriptor, apparel, clothing, and fashion. Multiple sources ranging

from news articles to industry reports were compiled. The research-

ers then visited each website and finally selected 10 business web-

sites as a representative platform of collaborative apparel

consumption currently available in the marketplace to consumers

(for more details, see Appendix). Throughout the literature analysis

procedure, these sites were examined for the purpose of verifying

the proposed collaborative consumption modes.

5 | FINDINGS

This section begins with the typology of collaborative consumption for

apparel proposed in the literature review and verified by an examina-

tion of business models. Following, the three key relationships (con-

sumer–product, consumer–consumer, consumer–business) that may be

transformed via collaborative apparel consumption experiences when

contrasted with traditional ownership are explored. Within these find-

ings, propositions as well as the major gaps in research for each area

are identified. The primary factors that emerged from the literature

along with relevant theoretical concepts are summarized in Table 1.

5.1 | Collaborative apparel consumption: typology

The two distinct collaborative consumption modes were initially pro-

posed in the literature review: One involving only the utility of a mate-

rial good by a customer and the other mode involving the personal

ownership of a redistributed good. In this study, each of the consump-

tion modes was labeled as utility-based nonownership and redistrib-

uted ownership respectively. Utility-based nonownership consumption

mode include online apparel renting schemes where personal owner-

ship is absent, and therefore, the product is not fully consumed, and

though the duration of access may vary but is defined (Reim et al.,

2014). The redistributed ownership consumption mode includes online

apparel consignment, auctions, resale, or swapping in which used goods

become owned once again to be completely consumed, and the access

period is undefined (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). The investigation of ten

businesses selected in this study revealed that the consumption modes

currently available in the marketplace to consumers indeed fall into

these two consumption modes.

Specifically, the verification procedure revealed four different

types of collaborative apparel consumption businesses: short-term

renting, subscription-based renting, swapping, and consigning. The

researchers noticed that the first two types of businesses (i.e., short-

term and subscription-based renting) represent utility-based nonow-

nership while the latter two types of businesses (i.e., swapping and

online consignment) represent redistributed ownership (see Table 2).

Upon this industry practice-based verification of the taxonomy of col-

laborative consumption for apparel, these two types of apparel collabo-

rative consumption (i.e., utility-based nonownership and redistributed

ownership) were then used for further analysis in the current study.

To date, previous researchers have not yet fully examined or con-

firmed whether personal ownership is justifiably the penultimate

TABLE 1 Framework for differentiating collaborative consumption models

Factor Related dimensions Relevant literature

Consumer–product relationship

Time Attachment constrained by. . . One-time or reoccurring transactions Duration with product

Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004

Product type Price Quality Symbolism Visibility of consumption (public/private)

Armstrong et al., 2015; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeis- ter, 2014; Binninger et al., 2015; Durgee and O’Connor, 1995; Leismann, Schimitt, Rohn, and Baedeker, 2015; Mylan, 2015; Reim et al., 2014; Schrader, 1999; Tukker and Tischner, 2006; Weinert, 2010

Consumer–consumer relationship

Sociality Anonymity vs. communality Public/private consumption Spatial distance between consumer and object

Albinsson and Perera, 2012; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2010; Binninger et al., 2015; Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015

Consumer–business relationship

Formality/institutionalization Business–Consumer or Peer-Peer For-profit/nonprofit Perceived risk

Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015; Mont, 2002

Position Political consumerism; low cost, premium, sustainable, etc. value propositions

Sense of sharing: joint ownership, pro-social intentions, absence of direct reciprocity

Innovativeness

Albinsson and Perera, 2012; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014; Belk, 2010; Philip et al., 2015; Hellwig et al., 2015; Philip et al., 2015

Convenience Required time, effort, responsibility Convenience Accessibility of the product Price model flexibility Time and cost savings Delayed acquisition

Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Catulli, 2012; Chou et al., 2015; Baumeister, 2014; Rexfelt and Ornas, 2009; Tukker 2004; Tukker and Tischner, 2006

468 | bs_bs_banner

PARK AND ARMSTRONG

consumption mode in the context of apparel, nor have researchers

adequately investigated distinctions between how the consumer expe-

riences utility-based apparel consumption versus cases where the item

is redistributed for another cycle of ownership. In the next section, the

researchers attempt to illuminate the many areas of research that

should be scrutinized to fully understand these emerging consumptive

phenomena in the context of apparel and to recommend research

propositions for future investigations.

5.2 | The consumer–product relationship and collaborative apparel consumption

According to Baumeister (2014), in personal ownership one exchanges

money for the object, accepts full property rights for an infinite period

of time, and largely experiences a close consumer–object relationship

with the item. In contrast, access-based consumption, which is akin to

utility-based nonownership in the current study, provides time with an

object only for monetary or nonmonetary exchange, provides only

usage rights for a restricted time period, and consequently yields a dis-

tant consumer–object relationship due to these seeming barriers to his-

tory- and meaning-making (Baumeister, 2014). However, this simplistic

approach to contrasting these two consumption modes is complicated

by the idea of redistributed ownership introduced in the current study,

where ownership occurs but the goods are passed along from another

user for a second life. Previous researchers have proposed a number of

potential implications for the consumer–product relationship in the col-

laborative consumption context. For instance, Durgee and O’Connor

(1995) have argued that the person-object relationship is augmented

when an object is rented with regard to factors such maintenance

effort, social development, the usage experience in time, and material-

ism. Likewise, Mӧeller and Wittkowski (2010) found that the impor-

tance of an object negatively influences nonownership but that this

lack of ownership was most positively influenced by a consumer orien-

tation to trends and convenience. These studies are hardly conclusive,

which is why this relationship deserves much more attention in future

research. Two factors emerged from the literature as relevant to the

consumer–product relationship for exploration: time and product type.

5.2.1 | Time

The time one has to utilize a good can be a point of distinction in col-

laborative consumption modes, particularly for modes that provide

only access or utility without personal ownership (Bardhi & Eckhardt,

2012; Baumeister, 2014; Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). It has been

hypothesized that the longer the access or usage period, the more

ownership-like tendencies may evolve (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). For

example, when one rents a dress or handbag for several months or lon-

ger, these items are likely to become included in the extended self

(Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Generally, Durgee and O’Connor (1995)

have found that product attachment is lower to rented goods, though

experiencing variety via renting may permit more self-exploration. This

would be the case in utility-based nonownership apparel offerings such

as short-term and subscription rentals but also in cases of redistributed

TABLE 2 Framework for differentiating collaborative consumption modes for apparel

Utility-based nonownership Redistributed ownership

Factors Short-term renting Subscription-based renting Swapping Consignment

Consumer–product relationship

Time One-time transaction Poten- tial for attachment lower

Reoccurring transactions Potential for attachment higher

One-time or reoccurring transactions

Potential for product attach- ment higher

One-time or reoccurring transactions

Potential for product attach- ment higher

Product characteristics Price: variable Quality/durability: variable Public, symbolic,

Price: low Quality/durability: variable Public, symbolic,

Price: variable Quality/durability: variable Public, symbolic

Price: variable Quality/durability: variable Public, symbolic

Consumer–consumer relationship

Sociality High anonymity/low commu- nality: Private consumption

High spatial distance

High anonymity/low commu- nality: Private consumption

High spatial distance

Lower anonymity/higher communality: Public consumption

Lower spatial distance

Lower anonymity/higher communality: Public consumption

Lower spatial distance

Consumer–business relationship

Formality- institutionalization

Business–Consumer For profit Highly formalized Less perceived risk

Business–Consumer For profit Highly formalized Less perceived risk

Business–Consumer For profit High-moderate formality More perceived risk

Business–Consumer For profit High-moderate formality More perceived risk

Position Economic, functional, political Low sense of sharing Low innovation

Economic, functional, political Low sense of sharing Low innovation

Economic, functional, political Higher sense of sharing Moderate innovation

Economic, functional, political Higher sense of sharing Low innovation

Convenience Low time, effort, responsibil- ity requirements

Limited product accessibility Delayed acquisition Flexible price model Cost savings

Low time, effort, responsibil- ity requirements

Convenience Limited accessibility Less flexible price model Time and cost savings Delayed acquisition

Higher time, effort, responsi- bility requirements

Convenience Limited accessibility Flexible price model Time and cost savings Delayed acquisition

Higher time, effort, responsi- bility requirements

Convenience Limited accessibility Flexible price model Time and cost savings Delayed acquisition

PARK AND ARMSTRONG bs_bs_banner

| 469

ownership where the consumer may continually “share” redistributed

goods via swapping or consignment schemes, owning the second-hand

good for only a short period. It may also follow that redistributed own-

ership, in which the owning time of the second-hand good is not

defined after the swap or consignment, is more akin to traditional own-

ership, allowing the consumer to foster deeper product attachment.

These factors support the following proposition:

Proposition 1: Product attachment is lower for collaborative

apparel consumption than traditional apparel ownership.

5.2.2 | Product characteristics

As evidenced by the many fields that are implicated in the sharing

economy, the characteristics of the products involved in the consump-

tion mode are also likely the most important aspects of differentiation.

Some emerging modes can be experienced materially while others only

involve a digital outcome (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012; Baumeister, 2014),

though apparel is arguably an exception. Three product characteristics

are the focus here: price, quality, and symbolism.

Price

Price could influence the perceived prestige value associated with a cat-

egory of goods, thereby influencing the consumer–object relationship

(Baumeister, 2014). Some researchers have found price consciousness

to be among the key motivations for access-based offerings (Durgee &

O’Connor, 1995), while others have found it to not be as influential

(Mӧeller & Wittkowski, 2010). When observing utility-based nonowner-

ship apparel models, a key selling point for some is the affordability of

previously inaccessible goods (e.g., “Make fashion affordable to every-

one”: Tradesy.com, n.d.). This is also the case for redistributed ownership

where price is an influential factor, especially in cases where the pur-

chase of a secondhand good costs less. Across all five businesses for

redistributed ownership in this study, affordability and low cost were

emphasized. These factors support the following propositions:

Proposition 2: Price consciousness is positively associated with

consumers’ motivations for collaborative apparel consumption.

Quality

Some authors have found quality to have less of an impact on consumer

satisfaction in utility-based nonownership offerings versus traditional

ownership (Lawson, 2011) while other authors have found high quality

products to be correlated with consumer satisfaction in renting schemes

(Scholl, 2006). In the current case of apparel renting schemes, the pre-

dominant aim is to allow consumers greater ease in accessing designer

goods. In some cases, these goods may very well evidence higher qual-

ity, permitting increased sharing. From a consumer’s perspective, in

either case, the quality of products may be less of a concern to the con-

sumer than in traditional ownership because their use of collaborative

consumption businesses can be mainly driven by status-seeking (e.g.,

renting designer bags) or fashion trends (e.g., redistributed ownership of

fashion goods). This supports the following proposition:

Proposition 3: Quality of products is less of a concern to the con-

sumer in collaborative apparel consumption than in traditional

apparel ownership.

Symbolism

Mylan (2015) recently argued that modifying traditional acquisition

modes would prove most difficult when the meaning of consumptive

elements are dramatically altered. In other words, when objects are

laden in symbolic meaning and associated with a traditional consump-

tion mode, for which many fashion goods could be categorized, it

would be challenging to change consumption practices in this context.

The more important a possession is to self-expression, the more diffi-

cult to transition the consumer–product relationship to some alterna-

tive mode (Mӧeller & Wittkowski, 2010; Schrader, 1999; Weinert,

2010). This factor is akin to a consideration that is especially critical to

apparel: the social visibility of consumption (Baumeister, 2014). Bau-

meister (2014) argues that the social visibility of consumption, whether

public or private, determines if the individual or a larger group of peo-

ple will influence the consumer’s behavior in the collaborative con-

sumption context, for which apparel largely falls in the former

category. If social visibility of a good is low, the product is consumed

privately. This supports the following proposition:

Proposition 4: Consumers’ intention to adopt collaborative con-

sumption is more difficult for apparel products than for other

products that are less symbolic in nature.

5.3 | The consumer–consumer relationship and collaborative apparel consumption

One of the most important distinctions between collaborative con-

sumption and traditional ownership is the interdependence between

various stakeholders to source goods. Many authors have recently sug-

gested that research efforts should more specifically investigate collab-

orative consumption as a social innovation (Chou, Chen, & Conley,

2015; Jaeger-Erben, R€uckert-John, & Schafer, 2015). Certainly, the

extent to which consumers are invested in existing solutions and socio-

cultural regimes constrains the implementation of more radical con-

cepts, especially those requiring the reduction or relinquishment of per-

sonal ownership (Verganti, 2009), especially in regards to apparel. An

important aspect in this regard is how consumers relate or connect

with other consumers in the collaborative consumption context.

The relative embodied sociality of a consumption mode is chiefly

related to dimensions such as the anonymity or communality consum-

ers may experience in the “sharing” of goods; the latter being particu-

larly relevant in peer-to-peer exchanges (Albinsson & Perera, 2012;

Botsman & Rogers, 2010), which are notably absent in apparel industry

business models. Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) argue that in access-

based consumption, the interpersonal relationship between consumers

is different depending on how public or private the access usage. Pri-

vacy conjures a “society of strangers,” an anonymous transaction, while

470 | bs_bs_banner

PARK AND ARMSTRONG

public usage is more social (library, gym, etc.) and may be more analo-

gous to sharing, as it may be more pro-social (Belk, 2010). Communal-

ity is the degree to which the consumption mode is truly shared or

collective. The degree of communality plays a role in shaping social

meaning and contributing to the perceived stability of the consumption

mode (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015).

The spatial distance between the consumer and object also con-

tributes to the level of perceived anonymity, which can prohibit how

intimate the consumption mode becomes. For instance, if the product

is not personally owned and within one’s possession, this increases the

anonymity one may feel in the consumption of the good (Bardhi & Eck-

hardt, 2012). Binninger, Ourahmoune, and Robert (2015) argue that

when access to the good is based on anonymity, both personal and

spatial, the community aspect loses its visibility. In sum, if consumers

are not required to connect with each other personally in the consump-

tion activity, anonymity is increased.

In the collaborative apparel consumption context, most utility-based

nonownership schemes (e.g., renting) evidence a high level of anonymity,

limiting communality due to the lack of cooperation required; a situation

where the various users of a good may never know the identity of previ-

ous users because the rental is facilitated by a business (Albinsson &

Perera, 2012). In the case of redistributed ownership, the scenario is

murkier and depends on the level of networking required to consume.

Although one may argue that swapping or consigning an item can only

be achieved via the cooperation of other swappers and consigners, the

potential for increased communality is debatable contingent on the inter-

vention of online mechanisms that may increase the anonymity of the

transaction. Armstrong, Niinimӓki, Kujala, Karell, and Lang, (2015)

recently found that apparel swapping business models were positively

perceived by consumers for the potential peer-to-peer camaraderie and

community that may be fostered, especially among young consumers.

This is an important area of research that begs further inquiry. Impor-

tantly, the higher the degree of communality of the alternative consump-

tion practice, the greater the opportunity to generate shared meanings

and values that contribute to personal identity (Albinsson & Perera,

2012). Therefore, previous findings support the following propositions:

Proposition 5: Anonymity is higher in collaborative consumption

for apparel than in traditional ownership.

Proposition 6: There is more potential for communality in redis-

tributed apparel ownership than utility-based nonownership.

5.4 | The consumer–business relationship and collaborative apparel consumption

Finally, another critical relationship that could arguably be transformed

in light of collaborative consumption modes is between the consumer

and the organizations that may facilitate collaborative consumption.

Some relevant factors that emerged from the literature review as influ-

ential in determining the nature of this relationship include how formal

or institutionalized the arrangement is, how the scheme is positioned,

and the convenience for the consumer.

5.4.1 | Formality or institutionalization

Collaborative consumption scenarios may manifest via informal settings

or formal organizations, associations, or enterprises that embody the

alternative consumption practice, and the degree of formality often

determines how consumers will relate to one another as well as the

extent to which the new practice is seen as stable, reducing perceived

risk (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). Aspects of market mediation and

whether the contracting partners are business-to-consumer or peer-to-

peer transactions (Baumeister, 2014) as well as whether the organiza-

tion that facilitates the “sharing” are for- or nonprofit (Bardhi &

Eckhardt, 2012) are important attributes that contribute to the formality

or the institutionalization of the consumption mode. At present, emerg-

ing collaborative consumption models in the apparel industry are for the

most part market-mediated and for-profit, and therefore highly formal-

ized. Utility-based nonownership modes are considered highly formal-

ized, mostly due to the well-established rental models available in the

market. In redistributed ownership, on the other hand, the formality is

considered only moderate, as the relation between consumers in this

mode is not entirely formalized (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). Reinhart

(2014) indicates that the distinction between these two cases can be

related to who owns and controls inventory. For instance, redistributed

ownership businesses do not hold inventory and focus only on connect-

ing buyers and sellers and reducing friction between the two parties;

while utility-based nonownership businesses take ownership over

goods to better control quality and the customer experience (Reinhart,

2014). When formality is high, the alternative consumption practice has

moved beyond informal settings and is made formal by way of enter-

prises, cooperatives, and associations that provide consumers with

these alternatives. This supports the following propositions:

Proposition 7: Formality/institutionalization is higher for utility-

based apparel nonownership than in redistributed apparel ownership.

Proposition 8: The more formal/institutionalized collaborative

apparel consumption modes, the lower the perceived risk for

consumers.

5.4.2 | Position

Collaborative consumption modes are positioned in the marketplace

from many different value propositions that invariably bolster or con-

strain the consumer–organization relationship (Baumeister, 2014).

Political consumerism

Consumers may certainly access the utility of a good for purely eco-

nomic or functional reasons but also as a political tool; the consumer

making a consumption choice based on their personal ideology (Bardhi

& Eckhardt, 2012; Philip, Ozanne, & Ballantine, 2015). Previous

researchers, for example, have found that peer-to-peer renting and

swapping are characterized by political consumerism (Albinsson &

Perera, 2012; Binninger et al., 2015; Philip et al., 2015). In the case of

PARK AND ARMSTRONG bs_bs_banner

| 471

utility-based apparel nonownership, one may rent a Louis Vuitton

handbag because he or she cannot afford to own one while yet

another may rent an evening dress for a special occasion because he or

she believes that it would be wasteful to own a garment that may

never be worn again. Businesses for redistributed ownership may also

signify political consumerism by empowering consumers for their con-

sumption choice, as described in the company’s business value: “Corpo-

rations and ad campaigns shouldn’t control our perception of beauty.

Instead, we celebrate each other’s unique style by sharing the things

we love and empowering others to look great. Together, we can have

it all” (Tradesy.com, n.d.). This supports the following proposition

Proposition 9: Political consumerism is an associated motive that

encourages engagement in collaborative apparel consumption.

Sense of sharing

Hellwig et al. (2015) argue that though some business models may not

exactly fit prototypical examples of traditional sharing, the concept of

sharing still likely shapes the consumer perception as an alternative

consumption mode. It is reasonable to assume that some consumers

may gravitate to some collaborative consumption models because they

are positioned to at least portray the embodiment of sharing. In the

case of apparel collaborative consumption modes, users may have

more peer-to-peer contact in redistributed ownership modes of swap-

ping and consigning while utility-based nonownership may involve a

greater level of market meditation, and therefore, less peer-peer

engagement. Indeed, the very idea of consigning and swapping is

closely connected to the sense of sharing. Poshmark.com, one of the

redistributed ownership businesses in this study, for example, pro-

motes sharing with a message, “Join us and be part of this awesome

community where we thrive on trust, respect, and of course, a shared

affinity for new discoveries in fashion” (Poshmark.com, n.d.). However,

these types of claims were rarely found in utility-based nonownership

businesses. These findings support the following proposition:

Proposition 10: Consumers may perceive a stronger sense of

sharing with redistributed ownership than with utility-based

nonownership.

Innovativeness

Another dimension associated with positioning that may impact the

consumer–organization relationship is the mode’s level of innovative-

ness, which refers to the degree of change prompted by the alternative

consumption mode when contrasted with traditional modes of con-

sumption (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). When innovativeness is high,

these modes are perceived by consumers as unusual and the adoption

of these modes will be more difficult. Jaeger-Erben et al. (2015) argue

that some forms of redistributed ownership, such as swapping, are

already closely related to some traditional consumption modes, and

therefore, represent only a moderate level of innovation. The level of

innovation for utility-based nonownership offerings, on the other hand,

is relatively low primarily because rental schemes have been market

mainstays for some time (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015). However, the

online context may complicate this assertion, particularly for redistrib-

uted ownership. Though online consignment is relatively straightfor-

ward and has been in the marketplace for some time, online clothes

swapping using virtual currency (e.g., Listia) is much more complex and

in the earliest stages of emergence. In fact, the vast majority of these

businesses, such as Yerdle, Swapstyle, or 99Dresses, that have entered

and withdrawn from the market quickly, could indicate challenges with

innovativeness. These findings support the following proposition:

Proposition 11: Innovativeness serves as a barrier to engagement

in collaborative apparel consumption.

5.4.3 | Convenience

It is evident that some consumption modes are so closely akin to shopping

for first-off goods, that there is little change in how much time and effort

one must expend to “share” goods while other modes reflect a distinct

shift in consumer habits. Jaeger-Erben et al. (2015) argue that the higher

the level of personal engagement required by the consumption mode,

commanding the consumer to adopt certain behaviors in everyday life, the

more difficult to stimulate consumer engagement. A related dimension is

the level of accessibility of a product. In cases of utility-based nonowner-

ship, the product is less accessible but the provider retains the burdens of

product ownership, which can serve as a greater convenience for the con-

sumer. In redistributed ownership, the product is less accessible by way of

the high variability in product assortment, which is dependent on the rele-

vant others who participate in the scheme. Currently, renting, swapping,

and consigning schemes all evidence accessibility challenges, and conse-

quently, limited market demand (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015).

Another dimension impacting convenience are the price models

utilized by the organization, and specifically, billing mechanisms. One

offer may simply be more expensive than another, but there may also

be more or less flexibility in the arrangement, such as whether a service

fee or a usage minimum is imposed or not, and whether one is paying

per use, opting for a longer term subscription, or some hybrid is offered

(Baumeister, 2014; Tukker, 2004). Reim et al. (2014) recently punctu-

ated the importance of contractual clarity to outline the rights and

liabilities involved in service implementation and barring against risk.

Convenience is also embodied by the extent to which the consumption

mode offers time and cost savings, which is constrained by the accessi-

bility of products (Chou et al., 2015). These aspects are relevant to

utility-based nonownership schemes as well as redistributed owner-

ship. Some examples of accessibility challenges in the context of appa-

rel include the case of swapping where consumers may experience the

most limited selection of goods (Rexfelt & Ornas, 2009), or when the

consumer exchanges an item for virtual currency only, or in the case of

consignment where the consumer experiences a delay between selling

and receiving monetary gain. In sum, virtually any factor that increases

convenience in consumption facilitates collaborative apparel consump-

tion. This supports the following proposition:

472 | bs_bs_banner

PARK AND ARMSTRONG

Proposition 12: Convenience in consumption facilitates collabora-

tive apparel consumption and positively influences consumer–busi-

ness relationship.

6 | CONCLUSION

Since TIME nominated the sharing economy as one of the “10 ideas

that will change the world” in 2011 (Walsh, 2011), this new economy

has significantly changed the way we consume goods over the last five

years. The apparel industry is not exempt from this disruptive change

within this post-ownership economy. Given the dearth of research on

this topic, this study has clarified a definition that is most relevant to col-

laborative apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy that

includes two primary modes of consumption: utility-based nonowner-

ship and redistributed ownership. Further, this study has proposed a

multilevel consumption framework, extending the work of Chen (2009),

to include three key relationships that most likely hold important con-

sumer behavior insights about these emerging consumptive phenomena:

consumer–product, consumer–consumer, and consumer–organization.

Taking a metatheory approach, the authors employed Reflexive

Dimensional Analysis to analyze theories across various schools of

thought and literature. Important research propositions have been put

forth. This study has made a durable link between theoretical perspec-

tives and key areas for future research inquiry that could increase

understanding about collaborative consumption’s distinction from tra-

ditional ownership. Importantly, many broad and often theoretically

conflicting definitions have evolved recently around collaborative con-

sumption and the sharing economy, especially in the digital arena,

which has muddied the water for scholarly inquiry. The contribution of

this work is the supplied clarity for consumer behavior scholars to

move forward with pointed areas of investigation.

REFERENCES

Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the

21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of

Consumer Behaviour, 11, 303–315.

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimӓki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E., & Lang, C. (2015). Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: Exploring consumer

perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 97, 30–39.

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The

case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.

Baumeister, C. K. (2014). Access versus ownership: Consumers’ reactions to an alternative consumption mode (Doctoral dissertation, Techni-

sche Universität M€unchen. Munich, Germany). URL http://d-nb.info/

106800214X/34 (accessed on September 12th, 2016).

Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 126–140.

Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.

Belk, R. (2014a). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative

consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.

Belk, R. (2014b). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropolo-

gist, 18, 7–23.

Binninger, A.-S., Ourahmoune, N., & Robert, I. (2015). Collaborative con-

sumption and sustainability: A discursive analysis of consumer repre-

sentations and collaborative website narratives. Journal of Applied

Business Research (Jabr), 31, 969–986.

Botsman, E., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collabo- rative consumption. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Catulli, M. (2012). What uncertainty? further insight into why consumers

might be distrustful of product service systems. Journal of Manufac-

turing Technology Management, 23(6), 780–793.

Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value per-

ceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits.

Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 925–940.

Chou, C.-J., Chen, C.-W., & Conley, C. (2015). An approach to assessing

sustainable product-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86,

277–284.

Durgee, J. F., & O’connor, G. C. (1995). An exploration into renting as consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 89–104.

Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2013). Bike share: A synthe-

sis of the literature. Transport Reviews, 33, 148–165.

Geron, T. (2013). Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the sharing econ-

omy. URL http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/

airbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/#73fcea386790

(accessed on September 12th, 2016).

Hamari, J., Sj€oklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy:

Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the

Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1–13.

Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., & Girardin, F. (2015). Exploring different types

of sharing: A proposed segmentation of the market for “sharing” businesses. Psychology and Marketing, 32, 891–906.

Jaeger-Erben, M., R€uckert-John, J., & Schafer, M. (2015). Sustainable con-

sumption through social innovation: A typology of innovations for sustain-

able consumption practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 784–798.

Lawson, S. (2011). Transumers: Motivation of nonownership consump-

tion. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 842–843.

Leismann, K., Schimitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2015). Collaborative

consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture.

Resources, 2, 184–203.

Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In

search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service

Research, 7, 20–41.

Mӧeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality, 20, 176–191.

Mylan, J. (2015). Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product– service systems: Insights from the sociology of consumption and

practice theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 13–20.

Mont, O. K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product-service system.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 237–245.

Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Grenville, A. (2014). Sharing is the new

buying. URL https://www.visioncritical.com/sharing-is-the-new-buying/

(accessed on September 12th, 2016).

Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-con-

sumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer

Behaviour, 9, 485–498.

Park, H., & Kincade, D. H. (2010). Historical analysis of an apparel mar-

keter’s strategies: Evidence from a Nike case. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1, 182–193.

Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of

qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-

synthesis. London, UK: Sage.

PARK AND ARMSTRONG bs_bs_banner

| 473

Philip, H. E., Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2015). Examining tempo-

rary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting. Journal of

Marketing Management, 31, 1310–1332.

Poshmark.com (n.d.). What is Poshmark? URL https://poshmark.com/

what_is_poshmark (accessed on September 12th, 2016).

Reim, W., Parida, V., & €Ortqvist, D. (2014). Product–service systems (PSS) business models and tactics – a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61–75.

Reinhart, J. (2014). Why the success of “Sharing Economy” startups hinges on who owns the inventory. URL http://www.businessinsider.

com/the-success-of-the-sharing-economy-2014-2 (accessed on

September 12th, 2016).

Rexfelt, O., & Ornas, V. F. (2009). Consumer acceptance of product-service

systems. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20, 674–699.

Schaefers, T., Lawson, S., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2015). How the burdens

of ownership promote consumer usage of access-based services.

Marketing Letters, 27, 569–577.

Scholl, G. (2006). Product service systems. In Perspectives on Radical Changes

to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP). Proceedings of Sustain-

able Consumption Research Exchange Network, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Schrader, U. (1999). Consumer acceptance of eco-efficient services: A

German perspective. Greener Management International, 25, 105–121.

Tradesy.com (n.d.). About us. URL https://www.tradesy.com/about/

(accessed on September 12th, 2016).

Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to

sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 13, 246–260.

Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field:

Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Jour-

nal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552–1556.

Tussyadiah, I. P. (2015). An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents

of collaborative consumption in travel. In T. Lis & I. Alessandro (Eds.),

Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 817–830).

Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of compe-

tition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business Press.

Wallis, S. E. (2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6,

73–120.

Walsh, B. (2011). Today’s smart choice: Don’t own. Share. URL http://con- tent.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0 (2880). 4,2059521_

2059717_2059710,00.html (accessed on September 12th, 2016).

Weinert, R. (2010). Property as a determinant of consumer behavior: The

example second home (Doctoral dissertation, Universität St. Gallen,

Switzerland). URL http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIden-

tifier/3717/$FILE/dis3717.pdf (accessed on September 12th, 2016).

How to cite this article: Park H, Armstrong CMJ. Collaborative

apparel consumption in the digital sharing economy: An agenda

for academic inquiry. Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41:465–474.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12354

APPENDIX : BUSINESS CASES FOR APPAREL COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION

Consumption mode Consumption example Website Product

Utility-based nonownership

Short-term renting

Customers rent Vera Wang’s dress for four days for $150

BagBorroworSteal.com Designer bags

Renttherunway.com Women’s clothes and accessories

Subscription- based renting

Customers rent unlimited clothing and accessories for 1 month with a monthly subscription fee of $50

Fashionhire.com Designer bags Gwynniebee.com Plus size women’s clothes and ac-

cessories Letote.com Women’s clothes and accessories

Redistributed ownership

Swapping Customers sell clothes via a mobile app in exchange for credits (i.e., virtual currency) which can be paid to buy other items; a service fee is charged in each transaction by a company

Listia.com Clothing and other consumer goods

Consigning Customers list their unwanted clothes on the company’s website and get it consigned for free; a service fee is charged in each transaction by a company

Tradesy.com Women’s clothes and accessories

Poshmark.com Women’s clothes and accessories Vinted.com Women’s clothes and accessories Thredup.com Women’s, maternity, plus size, chil-

dren’s clothes and accessories

Note. During the search, those companies that were too small in size (e.g., operating at a regional level), did not offer apparel, and those that were not online-based (e.g., off-line swap meets) were eliminated. The final 10 companies were considered suitable cases for our investigation given the availabil- ity of data (e.g., media coverage) and the leadership that these companies have shown in the collaborative consumption industry for the apparel sector. Selecting firms showing industry leadership is a good method to begin qualitative work in a field (Park & Kincade, 2010).

474 | bs_bs_banner

PARK AND ARMSTRONG