This paper reviews an empirical study of marketing problems among 101 small-scale industrial units in Varanasi, India. The authors identify over 55 deficiencies in marketing practices, ranging from lack of planning to poor customer awareness. However, this critique exposes significant methodological weaknesses: the authors initially claim empirical rigor but later acknowledge the study as exploratory and descriptive; there is no statistical tabulation of survey responses; internal contradictions undermine key conclusions; and narrative quality issues affect credibility. The review evaluates the study's claims about the importance of marketing planning, the pervasive "lack of" problems identified, and questions whether the evidence truly supports the broader assertions about small-scale industry challenges in India's economy.
This critique examines a research study on marketing issues faced by small-scale industrial units in India. The original study was conducted over a ten-year period and surveyed 101 small-scale industrial units in Varanasi, India. The authors focused on the marketing "problems" that these units face, though they acknowledged that other challenges exist relating to production, finance, and personnel matters. At the outset, the authors claimed their work was an "empirical survey," which they argued was important because small-scale industries are vital to India's overall economy. They noted that employment and output among these units have risen dramatically, along with the number of operating units. However, they also asserted that marketing problems result in "opportunities lost" by these small firms.
The article contains significant contradictions regarding its research methodology. Although the authors initially present their work as an "empirical survey," they later seem to distance themselves from this claim. On page 68, they describe the study as "fundamentally exploratory" and "descriptive in nature" (Jha, et al, 2010). On page 69, they further explain that the problems they disclose "may be taken as an illustrative not as conclusive form," which undermines the credibility of treating this as truly empirical research (Jha, 69).
Beyond methodological ambiguity, the authors' use of English demonstrates a lack of sophistication that affects overall quality. For example, on page 69 they write, "For example, since most of the entrepreneurs are shadowed by middlemen's." Additionally, the entrepreneurs are described as "not very much serious with regard to ascertaining..." the consumer buying habits (Jha, 69). These grammatical and stylistic shortcomings, combined with other narrative inconsistencies, make it difficult for readers to trust the quality of the research findings. When the narrative itself appears sketchy, readers naturally question the rigor of the underlying work.
Furthermore, the article suffers from excessive repetition of its central themes. The authors continually assert the importance of marketing plans for small industries, yet they note that existing marketing plans contain "marketing objectives" that "are not based on suitable standards." They also argue that since small-scale industry leaders do not "exactly know the customers," they cannot assess whether customers are satisfied with their products (Jha, 70). These same points resurface repeatedly without advancing new insights.
The study presents a list of over 55 points where small industries are either lacking or failing, with most framed as "Lack of..." statements. While repetition suggests widespread problems, a critical concern emerges: the authors provide no empirical tabulation of how the 101 survey respondents actually answered the questionnaire. Readers see only generalizations about areas needing improvement, not the raw data or statistical breakdown that would justify the broad claims.
More troubling are the internal contradictions that undermine the study's core arguments. The authors simultaneously assert that small-scale industries "(SSI) have been playing a very significant and strategic role in Indian capital" (74), yet characterize their products as "small in quantity and shoddy in quality" (73). This logical inconsistency raises a fundamental question: How can industries be playing significant economic roles while producing inferior goods? This contradiction is never resolved.
A second contradiction concerns the root cause of SSI struggles. Early in the article, the authors claim that SSI challenges stem "mainly due to cut throat competition from other industries" (67). Later, however, they argue that small firms "lack the awareness and understanding of the vital role played by promotion" and need marketing improvement (72). These explanations are not necessarily compatible. If the primary problem is external competition, then internal marketing deficiencies may be secondary. The authors do not clarify which causal mechanism dominates or how these factors interact.
"Assessment of generalization, repetition, and unfocused conclusion"
This critical review reveals that while the original study addresses an important topic—marketing challenges in India's small-scale industrial sector—it suffers from fundamental weaknesses that undermine confidence in its conclusions. The discrepancy between claimed "empirical" status and actual "exploratory" design, combined with narrative quality issues, raises credibility concerns. Internal logical contradictions regarding industry significance and causal factors introduce confusion rather than clarity. Most significantly, the absence of statistical data presentation and the presence of an off-topic conclusion suggest insufficient rigor in analysis and presentation. These methodological and structural deficiencies mean that while the research may have identified real issues worthy of investigation, the study itself does not provide sufficient evidence to support its broader claims about small-scale industry challenges or to guide meaningful policy or business interventions. Future research on this important topic would benefit from clearer methodological grounding, focused analysis, and transparent data presentation.
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.