Abstract
Frugal innovation (FI) is a recent topic in the scientific literature and it was introduced in relation to management studies. According to scholars, FI is a promising way to serve low-income people who cannot afford conventional products, especially those in developing countries, and to address the urgent need to rethink how resources can be used effectively to operate a sustainable business in the emerging global scenario. This systematic literature review article investigates how the use of qualitative research in studies on FI can contribute to the theory and applicability of FI in society. Searches were conducted in the Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink and Web of Science databases. After surveying and sorting the documents found, 61 research articles dealing with the various aspects and concepts of FI and addressing the use of qualitative research were selected for this literature review.
Introduction
The rapid rate of global population growth and the proliferation of developmental breakthroughs around the world continue to put pressure on finite resources (Abbas et al., 2020; Ezeudu et al., 2022). Developing countries, where access to basic conditions is still non-existent in many regions, account for the largest share of global customers and many of them need affordable products (Brem et al., 2020; Hossain, 2020). It should be noted that many of these people live in remote (rural) areas which lie beyond the reach of last mile services (Bandi et al., 2022; Hossain, 2020).
Thus, it is necessary to rethink how resources can be used effectively to operate a sustainable business in developing countries. Products for low-income consumers have received significant attention from scholars and practitioners, and providing value to these vulnerable customers is a key challenge for companies (Agarwal et al., 2018; Brem et al., 2020).
In developing countries large numbers of customers who simply cannot afford conventional products and services are increasingly looking for products that are good enough but affordable (Hossain, 2020; Sarkar & Pansera, 2017). Consequently, companies are increasingly focusing on developing solutions for low-income customers. Integrated design solutions as a way to address the underserved needs of customers living in poverty and integrated frugal innovations are key to satisfying these consumers (Hossain & Sarkar, 2021).
One way to better understand social contexts and needs is through studies in social sciences. According to Godoy (1995), the expression “social sciences” can be used to refer to several areas of knowledge that are dedicated to the understanding of social, economic, political, psychological, cultural and educational phenomena. According to the researchers Charnley et al. (2017), the field of social sciences can help natural resource managers in many ways, for instance: to identify and assess the social and ecological trade-offs associated with different types of management; make decisions that are appropriate for the environment and human well-being; make appropriate decisions for a given socio-ecological environment; and obtain scientifically-based information from samples of people to better anticipate variations in their interests and the effects of management decisions on human communities.
To carry out research, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are used to understand the human-society relationship and both have their importance and weight in the scientific literature. However, according to Guba and Lincoln (1994), historically, there has been a strong emphasis on scientific quantification and a depreciation of qualitative research, which is sometimes described as “soft” or as an approach with little reliability. However, it should be noted that qualitative research has the natural environment as a direct source of data and the researcher as a fundamental instrument. Thus, in this approach, the direct and prolonged contact of the researcher with the environment and the situation being studied is valued (Godoy, 1995).
In this context, since frugal innovation (FI) is one of the most recent concepts introduced in the management literature and scholars who are exploring this concept claim that FI is a promising way to serve low-income people who cannot afford conventional products (Hossain, 2021), this review article examines the use of qualitative research in studies on FI. The aim is to enhance our understanding of how qualitative research can contribute to the theory and application of FI in society, as well as highlight different methodological approaches and indicate those which merit further application in future studies.
Contextualizing Frugal Innovation: the Origin and Needs of People at the Bottom of the Socio-Economic Pyramid
According to the researchers Patnaik and Bhowmick (2020) and Hossain and Sarkar (2021), frugal innovation (FI) plays a significant role in inclusive innovation as it has become increasingly important for the social and political empowerment of the population at the base of the socioeconomic pyramid. Frugal innovation, also known as “Jugaad innovation” and “Gandhian innovation”, aims to reduce technological complexity and provide value to customers in resource-constrained environments (Ananthram & Chan, 2021; Dabić et al., 2022). It is noteworthy that India is at the forefront of FI research and the designs developed demonstrate differences from conventional innovation in terms of novelty, target market and business model (Hossain, 2021).
According to Krishnan and Prashantham (2018), Indian companies used to be weak and largely focused on adapting imported technology to Indian conditions based on technology licensing and direct purchase of technology, often of technologies considered “next generation”. The watershed in India was economic liberalization in the early 1990s since, prior to the reforms, state entities (national laboratories) were the main actors in collaboration in the Indian innovation ecosystem.
Frugal innovations are products or services that creatively use the often-limited resources available to produce high-quality, affordable solutions for target customers. They are economical, robust and easy to use and their main differentiator from advanced western innovations is that frugal innovations are simple products or services that minimize costs and the resources used, while offering value and good quality solutions. Largely focused on customers at the base of the pyramid (BoP), these innovations are increasingly seen as the new imperative for product development on a global scale (Agarwal et al., 2021; Dabić et al., 2022; Leliveld et al., 2023).
According to Brem et al. (2020), making do with what is available has become one of the strengths of individuals and companies crisis environments. Results, products and services that not only fix a problem temporarily but solve a context-specific problem cost-effectively and specifically without compromising quality have become famous as frugal innovations.
It is noted that scholars have observed that the base of the pyramid (BoP) represents a significant market opportunity, not only for businesses but it is also essential to consider that the BoP harbours a diversity of highly creative and determined entrepreneurs, eager for opportunities and improvements in their lives (Prahalad, 2005). Consequently, these individuals often establish their own businesses and develop products and services that cater to the needs of their communities (Leliveld et al., 2023).
Prahalad (2005) cite examples of entrepreneurs from the base of the pyramid with frugal innovations such as: (a) milk producers in India, who created an efficient distribution network to meet the needs of their communities; (b) craft producers in Mexico, who established a successful brand and managed to export their products to other countries; and (c) prepaid mobile phone service to cater to the needs of low-income consumers in India.
As with these cases, numerous others are mentioned in the scientific literature: (a) Boond, India, a social enterprise that provides clean energy, health, and education services to rural and low-income areas (Sarkar & Mateus, 2022); (b) Mitticool clay fridge, India, a refrigerator made of natural clay that does not require electricity to operate (Hossain et al., 2016); (c) Jayaashree pads, India, an Indian social initiative that produces low-cost, high-quality sanitary pads for women in rural and low-income areas (Mcphee et al., 2018; Sarkar & Mateus, 2022), among others.
As pointed out by Leliveld et al. (2023), frugal innovation, as a practice, can be observed and identified in various parts of the world. This encompasses both affluent and developing countries, as well as formal and informal economic settings. The stakeholders involved in frugal innovation can vary from multinational companies introducing and marketing frugal solutions on a regional or global scale to individual entrepreneurs offering specific frugal solutions. These solutions assist people in overcoming resource constraints in their own communities, neighbourhoods, or villages.
Researchers argue that FIs have significant potential in terms of achieving sustainable development as they incorporate many elements of sustainability out of necessity, such as economic, social and environmental concerns. In this way, the Brundtland report defines that “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Thus, FI is one way to address the sustainable development goals (Hossain, 2021).
According to Nylund et al. (2021), complex and frugal innovations can offer other avenues, for example, for eco-innovations in the future. According to the authors, eco-innovation encompasses all those innovations that reduce the environmental burden with sustainable objectives such as minimizing the use of natural resources, minimizing the costs of waste management and improving pollution control.
Finally, according to Dabić et al. (2022), the academic literature on the subject is fragmented due to its multidisciplinary application, requiring reviews in several areas such as engineering, health, transport, energy and manufacturing. According to the authors, “[…] there is a clear need for a comprehensive review of the management of frugal innovation. This would bring together the fragmented strands of work within the field, facilitating a better understanding of the main research themes from the theoretical and methodological foundations” (Dabić et al., 2022, p. 915).
Methods
This article offers a systematic review which sought to elucidate current research and findings associated with frugal innovation and examine the use of qualitative methodologies described in relevant publications. According to Galvão and Ricarte (2019), the systematic review of the literature is a type of research that follows specific protocols and seeks to understand and give some logic to a large corpus of documents, verifying which do and do not lie within a given context. The focus is to enable reproducibility, explicitly presenting the bibliographic databases that were consulted, the search strategies applied to each database, the process used for the selection of scientific articles, the article inclusion and exclusion criteria and the analysis of each article.
This review was focused on research articles on the topic of frugal innovation (FI) that used qualitative methods, such as: (a) case study; (b) action research; (c) ethnography; (d) field research; (e) grounded theory; and (f) mixed methods. Subsequently, a survey of techniques and procedures for data collection and analysis was carried out, including: (a) sampling; (b) interviews; (c) observation-participant or non-participant; (d) focus group; (f) content analysis; and (g) discourse analysis.
The review was conducted by searching for research articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals, excluding other literature sources such as review articles, books, book chapters, conference papers and projects. To search for articles, the filters used were: type of document (research articles) and time frame (2012–2022). The databases consulted were ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and SpringerLink. Nine search terms were applied: “frugal innovation” AND (qualitative OR “case study” OR “grounded theory” OR “action research” OR ethnography OR phenomenology OR “field research” OR interview). Figure 1 exemplifies the method used to select research articles for this review. Exemplification of the method used for the selection of research articles. Source: Authors, 2022.
Eligibility Criteria for the Selection of Research Articles.
Source: Authors, 2022.
Lastly, to analyze the results and contents researched by this systematic literature review, the “Results” and “Discussion” sections are structured as follows: (a) “4. Results”: presentation of the results of the articles that make up the final portfolio, such as the journal in which they were published, impact factor, citations, area of expertise, country and institution of origin of the authors; (b) “4.1 Qualitative methods, techniques and procedures addressed in research”: survey of qualitative methods, techniques and procedures used by the authors found, as well as determination of the methods and procedures most frequently used. (c) “5. Discussion”: discussion on the elements of frugal innovation and qualitative research through the perspective and experiences of researchers. (d) “5.1 Concepts and contributions related to frugal innovation”: compilation of researched concepts related to FI according to the articles found. The objective was to understand FI in general through the perspectives of authors located applying the terms used. (e) “5.2 Advantages, gaps and challenges in qualitative research found in research on frugal innovation”: through readings in full of each research article. After surveying the methods and techniques used a discussion on the advantages, gaps and challenges noted by the researchers is presented, along with recommendations for future research.
Results
When searching for the terms “frugal innovation” AND (qualitative OR “case study” OR “grounded theory” OR “action research” OR ethnography OR phenomenology OR “field research” OR interview), 277 results were returned from the ScienceDirect database, 123 Scopus results, 558 SpringerLink results and 69 Web of Science results. Subsequently, the “Document type” and “Time clipping” filters were applied, leaving 219 from the ScienceDirect database, 80 results from Scopus, 128 results from SpringerLink and 56 results from the Web of Science. After reading the titles, abstracts and keywords, 63 articles were selected from the ScienceDirect database, 59 articles from Scopus, 44 articles from SpringerLink and 40 articles from the Web of Science, totaling 206 research articles.
Number of Excluded Research Articles and the Reason for Their Exclusion.
Source: Authors, 2022.
Number of Relevant Articles Published in Each Journal and the Journal Impact Factor.
Source: Authors, 2022.
Table 3 shows that 61 articles were identified in 28 journals, which have an impact factor >2.000. The journals with the highest number of published articles that address frugal innovation through qualitative research were the Journal of Cleaner Production with 12, the Technological Forecasting & Social Change with 8 and Technovation with 5 articles. Regarding the categories of journals, the areas that appeared the most are related to management, business and environmental studies, and these were also the areas of activity of the researchers that appeared most in the descriptions about the authors in the articles (see appendix). The terms that had the highest co-occurrence among the 61 research articles were: “Frugal Innovation”, “Sustainability” and “Emerging Markets”, as can be seen in Figure 2. Analysis of co-occurrence among the most used terms in the 61 research articles. Source: Authors/2022.
The map in Figure 2 was created in VOSviewer, a software tool that is widely used for analysis, mapping and identifying the co-occurrence of terms, citations, authors, among others, in systematic reviews. It can be noted in Figure 3 that the terms “Frugal Innovation”, “Sustainability” and “Emerging Markets” received greater attention from 2019 onward and, among the 43 encounters between the terms, the words “qualitative research” and “case study” had the highest co-occurrence in the articles used for the present systematic literature review. Regarding the number of publications of articles and participating countries (see appendix), Figure 3 shows the number of publications per continent. Graph showing the number of publications by continent. Source: Authors/2022.
According to Figure 3, the continents that had the most publications were Europe, in particular the United Kingdom (16 participations in articles) and Germany (13 participations in articles), Asia, notably India (7 participations in articles) and Qatar (4 participations in articles), and the Americas, especially the United States (7 participations in articles) and Brazil (3 participations in articles).
Methods, Techniques and Qualitative Procedures Addressed in Research
Quantification of the Methods Used and Their Combinations.
Source: Authors, 2022.
Quantification of Methods Employed and Their Combinations.
Source: Authors, 2022.
Quantification of the Data Analysis Techniques Used and Their Combinations.
Source: Authors, 2022.
Quantification of Software Programs and Applications Used.
Source: Authors, 2022.
It was observed that of the 61 research articles, only 20 mentioned the use of some software program or applications. The most cited were Atlas Ti, NVivo and MaxQDA. NVivo is widely used in qualitative data analysis and Atlas Ti and MaxQDA can be used for mixed data analysis (qualitative and quantitative).
According to Lewins and Silver (2007), regardless of the methodological approach adopted in qualitative research, the use of software can facilitate and encourage the cyclical and iterative nature of this type of research. For the authors, this means that, during qualitative analysis, researchers can revisit and adjust their codes, categories, and interpretations as they progress, making the process more adaptable and flexible, rather than strictly linear.
Within the context of qualitative research, transparency is paramount, and the use of software in data analysis offers valuable opportunities to explicitly document all stages of the process. The researcher’s conscious reflexivity, detailed annotations, and the creation of transparent records contribute to the credibility and quality of the research. Transparency in software usage enhances understanding and replicability, thereby strengthening the robustness of the results (Lewins & Silver, 2007).
In this way, it can be stated that transparency in qualitative research plays a crucial role in the credibility and quality of conducted studies. In this context, it is observed that, out of the 61 articles analyzed in this study, only 20 mentioned the use of software programs or applications to assist in qualitative analysis. This finding highlights a gap in the practice of disclosing and documenting the tools used in qualitative data analysis. The lack of software mention has significant implications, as it can hinder replicability and the comprehension of the adopted methodology.
Finally, it was also noted that classic authors of qualitative research were referenced by researchers to support the use of methods, collection procedures and qualitative data analysis techniques. The most cited authors were Robert K. Yin, Kathlemm M. Eisenhardt, Melissa E. Graebner, Barney Glaser, Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin.
Discussion
In this section, the concepts presented by the authors of the 61 research articles selected for the preparation of this review paper will be detailed, as well as the advantages, gaps and challenges encountered by researchers when conducting qualitative research.
Concepts and Contributions of Frugal Innovation
In recent years, the idea of frugal innovation (FI) has gained attention among innovation scholars and, being in its early stage, the associated definitions and concepts are changing and evolving (Brem et al., 2020; Hossain et al., 2016). According to Lu et al. (2020), “frugal innovation” is not a new phenomenon, as academia has been aware of this concept since 1997, but it is a new term in the sense that the word “frugal” has only been connected with “innovation” since 2010 (initially by the Economist magazine). It is noteworthy that there are challenges for creating solutions with ownership and, at the same time, avoiding the waste of resources and accessibility at a global level (Bianchi et al., 2017; Hossain et al., 2016.
According to Hossain et al. (2016) and Bianchi et al. (2017), the concept of frugal innovation refers to a new, satisfactory and creative solution, to be developed in the scenario of a scarcity of resources (financial, material or institutional). The researchers also noted that with frugal innovation it is possible to reduce costs, use a variety of materials and methods, as well as remodel existing products or processes to make them better and more sensitive to the context of developing countries (Annala et al., 2018; Wan et al., 2019).
According to Pansera and Owen (2015) and Sarkar (2021), FI essentially explains a phenomenon that involves simplifications and meets basic needs with scarce resources and lower costs. Thus, a growing interest in how the poorest countries innovate is reported and this has generated terminology such as ‘frugal innovation’, ‘reverse innovation’, ‘Jugaad innovation’, ‘BOP innovation’, ‘Gandhian innovation’, ‘empathic innovation’, ‘long tail and long adaptation’ innovation, ‘under-the-radar innovation’, ‘inclusive innovation’ and ‘grassroots innovation’ (Pansera & Owen, 2015, 2018).
According to Hossain et al. (2016), there are several concepts that overlap with the concept of frugal innovation, such as cost innovation, resource constrained innovation, Shanzhai (in Chinese) and Jugaad (in Indian). These innovation concepts represent somewhat different origins, but they have similarities in approaching the issue of accessibility. Bianchi et al. (2017), for example, noted that there are comparisons of frugal innovation with innovations at the base of the pyramid (IBP) and state that the clearest difference is that PPIs are cheaper solutions for low-income consumers with the specific objective of creating new markets. However, frugal innovations are not necessarily delivered by the market.
Following this market logic, according to Hossain (2021), the lack of transferable knowledge in emerging economies makes Western companies sometimes consider the development of artisanal (homemade) products as a viable and specific approach to meeting the needs of low-income customers. In this way, many grassroots innovators, in most cases with limited education and technological knowledge, develop innovations using “outside the box” thinking and knowledge transfer at this level takes place informally.
Klarin (2019) and Sharmelly and Ray (2021) point out other contrasts between frugal innovation and the concepts of cost innovation and good enough innovation. According to the authors, frugal innovation is not just about low-cost and reengineering products. FIs are specifically designed based on a new product architecture that allows new applications at a lower price and have the potential to create new markets for the underserved population in relation to available and competitive market offers.
Sharmelly and Ray (2021) also point out that while consumers in emerging markets demand cutting-edge technology, they are limited by their purchasing power. According to Hubner et al. (2022) the Indian consumer has an additional requirement, that is, while they expect a really low price they also expect very good quality, which means they want the product to last a long time. Frugal innovation makes it possible to maintain a balance between demand criteria and performance requirements in emerging market contexts.
Winterhalter et al. (2017) noted that a major gap in these studies is that they treat all types of resource-constrained innovations for emerging markets as interchangeable concepts. However, current research has shown that these low-cost solutions differ significantly when it comes to novelty and target customer segments.
In the case of target customers, Sarkar and Mateus (2022) highlight the importance of understanding the target market and knowing the infrastructure available on site. The researchers use as an example the irregular or non-existent supply of energy in many rural contexts, this being a constraint that needs to be considered when designing a product. Similar cases of IF are also related to reliance on batteries or solar energy or are somehow adapted to operate under fluctuating electrical supply or without electrical supply.
It should also be noted that FI-based business models in emerging markets differ from business models in developed markets and, consequently, many Western companies face adaptability challenges in their existing business models to make them suitable for a changing environment or an emerging market (Winterhalter et al., 2017). According to Thun (2018), frugal innovation is a response to the extreme challenges of developing countries and noted that companies urgently need to radically rethink their business models, products and services. Thus, it is clear that frugal products are not simply low-cost, inferior-quality adaptations of Western products, but require considerable planning to optimize the design, function and performance (Bocken & Short, 2016; Sarkar & Mateus, 2022).
Examples of frugal innovations can be found in different sectors, including information and communication technologies, transport, banking and health technologies (Bianchi, 2019). Corsini et al. (2021) and Sharmelly and Ray (2021) raised the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to extraordinary economic losses for countries across the world. According to the authors, the global crisis means that frugal products and services may become useful for developed countries when post-pandemic financial constraints are high and customers around the world will increasingly want to spend less, demonstrating high price sensitivity.
Li et al. (2022) reported that research on entrepreneurs in the agro and pharmaceutical industries indicated that the pandemic caused growing exogenous uncertainty among entrepreneurs and, consequently, an increase in the retail price of commodities in these sectors. Studies have demonstrated entrepreneurial action focusing on business planning, frugality and emotional support, as well as suggesting that entrepreneurs have set long-term goals associated with frugality and make short-term sacrifices to achieve them.
In the health area, innovation implies a complex system of knowledge that requires coordination mechanisms that complement or replace current market approaches. High costs that limit access to health services are a common source of unsatisfactory innovation. Thus, Bianchi et al. (2017) propose frugal innovation as a particular type of innovation that can meet both evaluation criteria and FI seems suitable to address the problems of countless people facing health problems in developing and developed countries. The researchers further point out that “in some cases, frugal innovations are the only possible way to solve specific problems when markets do not work or users cannot afford regular medical technologies” (Bianchi et al., 2017).
Other areas can be cited as examples. Blessley and Mudambi (2022) and Bhaduri et al. (2018) claim that the concept of frugal innovation is considerable for the charitable food supply chain network as resources are always limited. While humanitarian organizations have used some of the best practices developed in for-profit contexts, they also serve as incubators for new ideas and approaches to managing and improving processes due to the needs presented by severely resource-constrained environments.
In a survey of indigenous communities, Onwuegbuzie and Mafimisebi (2021) presented studies of indigenous entrepreneurship and innovation around concepts such as frugal innovation, pro-poor innovation, BP innovation, Jugaad innovation, reverse innovation, inclusive innovation, under-the-radar innovation, disruptive innovation and resource-constrained innovation. Although there are other theoretical perspectives, it has been observed that despite resource constraints, frugal innovation emerges from indigenous environments and represents a potential source of solutions in resource-limited environments.
Some studies have identified the use of frugality concepts even in multinational companies. Malik et al. (2021) commented that Bosch and 3M use “frugal innovation to develop high-tech but low-cost products to meet the demands of market conditions in India and other low-income economies”. Other studies have also highlighted the importance of India’s efforts to develop frugal innovation as a “potential learning area for Europe” with the possibility of aiding a more sustainable approach to development (Devi & Kumar, 2018).
Regarding sustainability, Sarkar and Mateus (2022) point out that frugal innovation can contribute to sustainability, through frugal products and services, as they generally satisfy basic needs, such as food, health, water and energy. Thus, the authors understand that the FI approach encompasses the pillars of sustainability, i.e., social, environmental and economic factors. It should also be noted that frugal innovation emerges as a way for companies to face the problems of social sustainability while remaining profitable (Levänen et al., 2022).
Solis-Navarrete et al. (2021) provided reflections around FI and social innovation (SI). In their view, the motivation for FI is mainly driven by economic (cost reduction) and environmental factors (reuse of resources), which facilitates the acquisition of goods or services by low-income consumers in developing countries. Thus, they can be considered traditional innovations with possible social impacts, but they are not exactly SI and this requires further research. Following this reasoning, Park et al. (2022) notes that, compared to other characteristics of frugal innovation, the way in which technology has enabled frugal innovations to create social impact has received less attention and lacks empirical and theoretical exploration.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the interpretation and application of the term ‘frugal innovation’ may vary in the literature. Although related concepts such as Jugaad, grassroots, and others have been identified, each with their subtle distinctions and specific contexts, a broader and more inclusive perspective of frugal innovation (FI) is adopted within the scope of this article. Often, these related terms are used interchangeably in the literature, reflecting the evolving nature of the field. In this article, FI is considered a comprehensive construct, with concepts like Jugaad and grassroots viewed as specific dimensions or manifestations of this broader construct. While this interpretation may deviate from the initial conceptualization of FI, it aligns with common usage in the literature.
Advantages, Gaps and Challenges in Qualitative Research Found in Research on Frugal Innovation
The case study was one of the methods most frequently used in the 61 research studies considered in this review and some aspects were noted by the researchers. Weyrauch et al. (2021) found that the case study helped to identify two main benefits of frugal innovation in terms of sustainable development in the water sector: (a) it can provide a broader view of how water and its related challenges can increase business opportunities and expand the field of operations; and (b) a frugal innovation mindset can serve as a means for companies to find new ways to organize product and business development (i.e., innovation processes) and respond to the water-related challenges of the less affluent.
According to Bianchi et al. (2017), the use of a case study highlighted that frugal innovations are part of a management strategy and this strategy is not focused on frugal innovation itself but on solving a problem (in this case to meet local health needs) by all means available. However, the authors point out that its wider potential needs to be verified, as so far the experiences are restricted to the context of a single implementation, and further studies are required. For Hossain et al. (2016), rigorous analysis using the single-case method in depth can be useful to study factors that accelerate or weaken the diffusion of frugal innovation in various regions. Therefore, it is a method that manages to perceive subjective contexts in diverse environments.
Pansera and Owen (2015) used a case study to verify that a pluralistic narrative explanation can be more coherent with studies on innovations of limited resources for the population at the base of the pyramid. However, the authors found that although the research provided insights into the complexity and richness of innovation frameworks and practices, its limited duration prevented the development of a more longitudinal view. Therefore, rather than generalize from their case study, they suggest that more empirical research should be carried out to gain a better understanding of the emergence, dynamics and framing of narratives of innovation and scarcity of resources.
Sarkar and Mateus (2022) noted that their studies are not without limitations. According to these authors, by focusing exclusively on empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals they may have neglected other relevant contributions published in books, for example, which could further deepen our knowledge regarding FI. However, the researchers highlight that qualitative metasynthesis is a very useful and innovative approach to synthesizing a body of qualitative case study data. Therefore, they suggest that further debate on different approaches to qualitative metasynthesis and the ways in which it could be improved to acquire cumulative knowledge about phenomena is overdue.
According to Malik et al. (2021), while they present in-depth insights from qualitative case studies of multinationals operating in India, they comment that the findings may not be generalizable to other industries and cultural settings due to various socioeconomic and institutional differences. However, they note that the theoretical framework used by them could be suitable for generalization. They also highlight that the data are cross-sectional and could benefit from a targeted longitudinal case study design, incorporating interviews with customers and end users of these innovations to assess the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach when our societies are still struggling with issues of racial segregation, social and regional.
Lim and Fujimoto (2019) highlighted a limitation in their studies, as the findings are based on a case study of a single company. While a case study may be needed in exploratory research to identify an emerging pattern, the pattern found in the research needs to be clarified from further research investigating other patterns of innovation. Park et al. (2022) commented that the analysis of multiple cases in the energy and health sectors offered a new perspective on the transformative impact of advanced technologies in low-income markets. They also emphasize that the study contributed to the broader debate on digital transformation and its facilitating role in driving social impact in the bottom-of-the-pyramid markets.
Molina-Maturano et al. (2020) explained that case studies have already been applied to investigate both frugal and innovative innovations and proved to be an adequate method to support other sustainability assessments. The criticism that case studies are limited by a lack of representation and generalization seems to be rooted in a classical positivist philosophy. The detailed investigation of a case in its context, using different sources and types of data may not allow a generalization, but it can expand an understanding of the case as unique in its genre, its incorporation and the external factors that influence it and are influenced by it. While case study research is particularly suited to exploratory research, it can also be used to test hypotheses, concepts and theories and to build or develop them. In this context, exploratory qualitative and mixed-method research makes it possible to study phenomena in detail and within their context.
According to Fischer et al. (2020), the analysis of strategic management practices for frugal innovation requires an evolutionary perspective, but the findings lack sufficient longitudinal information for a formal assessment. Furthermore, as our empirical analysis is based on an in-depth case study of a university, further validation would be required in other contexts. Sharmelly and Ray (2021) recommend that in future research longitudinal research should be conducted to focus on frugal business model innovation, that is, it may be useful to study business model adaptation as a long process of trial and error over time in time-based longitudinal surveys.
Several other authors recommended the longitudinal study for frugal innovation contexts (Brem & Wolfram, 2017; Fischer et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2021; Pansera & Owen, 2015; Rosca et al., 2017; Winterhalter et al., 2017) According to Winterhalter et al. (2017), longitudinal studies can contribute to analyzing the dynamics of frugal business models over time. They also noted that in research concerned with the global dimension of business models it would be interesting to understand how companies can integrate low-cost business models for emerging markets into their global operations.
With regard to data collection and analysis, Sarkar (2021) noted some limitations in their research related to data collection from media coverage, newspaper and TV as sources, which failed to obtain a citizen’s perspective of the effectiveness of frugal innovation strategies to limit broadcasting. Thus, according to the researchers, it is important to recognize that there are likely to be other perspectives and factors, and these limitations provide opportunities for further research and interested academics can explore other fruitful avenues. Thus, they suggest investigating how other countries have dealt with crises and using research that can explore a conceptual framework that can bring to light the similarities, differences and implications of these and other related concepts.
Rosca et al. (2017) noted that their study focused on collecting data from 59 frugal and reverse innovations through secondary sources and analyzed the data through theoretical frameworks obtained from the literature. Thus, the concern arises that other important cases may have been missed. They also point out that although triangulation was used in data analysis, there were still difficulties in obtaining data that satisfied all items in the classification.
Albert (2019) highlighted as a limitation the fact that a single researcher evaluated the articles and selected them through qualitative content analysis and that a second encoder could have improved the reliability (inter-coder reliability) of the results. Hossain (2020) pointed out that the study reported had several limitations, for example, cases were selected that were covered in various media so that they could obtain rich data, however, this is a weakness, as relatively few cases end up being considered. Thus, the author suggested considering a greater number of cases from different sectors to give a more holistic view of FI, and emphasized that to improve our understanding, a quantitative study can be used to verify the construct that was proposed.
According to Solis-Navarrete et al. (2021) it is necessary to carry out more analysis of cases and experiences within the subject of social innovations to verify and validate the studies they proposed. Lim and Fujimoto (2019) limited their study to one topic in their research, that is, the performance of frugal innovations. However, they suggested investigations that include the customer’s personal and cultural experiences in appreciating the value of frugal innovations. They also point out that a future discussion on FI beyond performance, including the cultural experience of the unserved low-income customers, would contribute to a rich discussion on advancing frugal innovation.
According to Endres et al. (2022), their investigation had several limitations. Their recommendations, for instance, on how to apply Scrum to develop frugal innovations were drawn from the results of semi-structured interviews with experts, which, according to the authors, means that the suggestions are only supported by empirical data and lack generalization at this early stage. In addition, they also commented that the topic was approached only empirically from one of the two theoretical strands that were intended to be related.
Hossain (2018) commented that their article has some weaknesses, as they did not carry out interviews with support institutions (formal or informal) that could have provided additional information. Another issue was that all cases were drawn from South Asia as a target market and therefore the findings may be context-dependent. Thus, they suggested that studies need to be conducted in other geographic areas, such as South America, and also unsuccessful cases need to be explored as these could provide a balanced perspective and allow the comparison of FIs.
Vossenberg (2018) suggested new empirical research to support their framework, applying an interdisciplinary approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods. According to Li et al. (2022), although there are several qualitative studies available, it must be taken into account that the data are subjective. Therefore, in addition to qualitative research based on interview responses, for example, future research could focus on obtaining detailed numerical data (financial, statistical, among others) to test hypotheses.
Janda et al. (2020) noted that there may be different views on FI and sustainability, from a qualitative and a quantitative point of view. According to these researchers, in previous studies, mainly of a conceptual or qualitative nature, the authors approach sustainability as a consequence or spillover effect of frugality. However, quantitative studies can show that sustainability is an inherent characteristic of frugal products since a frugal product will always be more sustainable than its non-frugal counterpart. Finally, Chakravarty (2022) recommended future research, whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, to advance discoveries in frugal innovation by applying different theoretical lenses and data from other emerging countries.
Final Considerations
In this review article the existing literature related to qualitative research on frugal innovation was organized in order to lay the foundations for subsequent work, identifying concepts and gaps in our current knowledge on this subject and recommending new directions for future research. In addition to a quantitative review of studies on frugal innovation and qualitative research, this article presents a qualitative analysis of the concepts, examining publications in the last 10 years on frugal innovation and highlighting points made by the authors themselves regarding the use qualitative research in their studies. The content presented herein can thus help other researchers to conduct further empirical work on this subject.
A systematic review of the literature was carried out and 61 research articles were analyzed. Based on the articles read in full, it is clear that frugal innovation is a relatively new topic and more research is required to better understand its application to the populations of developing countries, especially those in areas without the minimum basic conditions.
It is known that quantitative research is key to achieving reliability and validity in studies on many global issues. However, it was observed that when dealing with social issues and understanding the needs and subjectivities of certain groups, in-depth qualitative research can be applied to address the cultural, psychological, emotional, social and historical issues of a particular set of people.
In terms of future work, it is concluded that there is a need for more studies on frugal innovation through qualitative and quantitative research, and particularly the “quali-quanti” junction. Quantitative research can contribute to numerically understanding the behavioral patterns of populations that need more attention. On the other hand, qualitative research can identify what people think and better understand their perception of a certain topic, allowing them to share their opinions, motivations and feelings, rooted in their culture and history.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Qualitative Research Parameters in Studies on Frugal Innovation
Supplemental Material for Qualitative Research Parameters in Studies on Frugal Innovation by Ana Paula Provin, Anelise Leal Vieira Cubas, Ana Regina de Aguiar Dutra, Clarissa Carneiro Mussi, Ivone Junges, Nei Antonio Nunes, Jacir Leonir Casagrande, and José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra in International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of several institutions in the successful completion of this study. The research was carried out by the Centre for Sustainable Development (Greens) in collaboration with the Graduate Program in Administration at the University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul) as part of the Greens 10 × 10 project. We also extend our appreciation to the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC), Ânima Institute (AI), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for their invaluable support and assistance throughout the research process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC), Ânima Institute (AI), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for their invaluable support and assistance throughout the research process.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
