A Paradigmatic and Methodological Examination of Market Orientation Research

Transcription

1 A Paradigmatic and Methodological Examination of Market Orientation Research Introduction Extant literature on market orientation (referred to as MO) shows a lack of diversity of methods since the seminal works of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990). This field of scholarship has evolved for more than two decades now. A quick reading of the field would tell readers that quantitative methods and hypotheses testing dominate the methodological space in the literature. Only a few studies have used an interpretive approach (e.g., Gebhart, Carpenter, & Sherry, 2006). Over the last several decades, debate regarding the philosophy of science-related issues in marketing research (e.g., Deshpande, 1983; Hunt, 1994) has escalated. Marketing researchers predominantly rely on positivist methodology and hypothesis testing as the means for accumulating marketing knowledge. The dominance of one theoretical paradigm also brings forth its inherent biases. In this study, we examine the extant literature on MO using the paradigmatic and methodological lenses. We review 95 studies published on MO in the leading academic journals representing North America, European, and Asia Pacific regions with the multiple objectives of (a) examining the progress of MO research from 1990 to 2011, (b) analyzing the research paradigms adopted in these studies using the operations research paradigm framework of Meredith, Raturi, Amoaka- Gyampah, and Kaplan (1989), and (c) comparing and contrasting various kinds of research studies, methodologies, and research designs used in the studies. Research Paradigms An Overview According to Burrell and Morgan (1979, p.24), To be located in a particular paradigm is to view the world in a particular way. Different world views (ontological assumptions) lead to different ways in which knowledge is acquired (epistemological orientation) and different methodologies are adopted (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). A paradigm allows a researcher to determine what questions are to be explored and methods to be followed. The researcher s belief in a paradigm is reflected through the research design, how data is both collected and analysed, and how research results are presented. In general usage a paradigm is a set of assumptions, principles that we commonly agree upon and follow (Marshall, 1994). A more elegant and grander definition of paradigm was provided by Thomas Kuhn (1970, p. x) who defined it as universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners. Barker, Nancarrow, and Spackman (2001) examined paradigms in the market research industry. They discussed the shift from positivism to the interpretive paradigm and the emergence of a new paradigm informed eclecticism requiring understanding of different disciplines to bring more insights to marketing issues. The concept of the sociological paradigm may be considered as a continuum with subjectivity sitting at one end and objectivity at the other end (Chung & Alagaratnam, 2001). The major differences between positivism and interpretivism occur on ontological, epistemological, and methodological fronts. Positivists believe that reality exist independently of human experiences while interpretivists believe that reality is embedded in social interactions which are constructed and reconstructed continuously (Burell & Morgan, 1979). Epistemologically, positivists follow 1

2 the method of hypothetic deductive testing of theories to generate verifiable, falsifiable and generalisable scientific knowledge (Popper, 1959). Interpretivists assume that knowledge should be obtained through the understanding of multiple subjective realities constructed through social interactions (Walsham, 1995). Methodologically, positivists like to take a value free position and use objective measures to test a hypothetic deductive theory. For example, a survey research design is a positivist way of collecting value free objective data. Interpretivists, on the other hand, argue since reality consists of multiple interpretations, the researcher has to become an integral part of the phenomenon to understand the meaning created through interactions of social actors. Ethnographic studies that involve researcher embedding themselves into the research context over a longer period of time are typical interpretive examples (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). Paradigmatic Representation We use Meredith, et al. s (1989) operations research paradigm framework to analyse MO research. The comprehensive framework put forward by Meredith, et al. (1989) to analyse research paradigms has been employed in various other fields including information systems (Yadav & Gupta, 2008) and corporate social responsibility (Taneja, Taneja, & Gupta, 2011). The framework consists of two dimensions: nature of truth (rational versus existential) and the kind of information used (natural versus artificial). Rationalism uses logic as the ultimate measure of truth whereas existentialism posits that knowledge is acquired through human process of interacting with the environment (Meredith, et al., 1989, p. 305). The Rational and Existential continuum consist of four generic approaches: axiomatic, logical positivist/empiricist, interpretive, and critical theory. The axiomatic perspective takes the approach of theorem proof world of research. The logical positivist/empiricist perspective believes that there is an objective world independent of existing reality. The interpretive perspective emphasises the context of the phenomenon and immersion in it as an important aspect of the study. They study people rather than objects and focus on meanings and interpretations. The critical theory perspective strives to combine the positivist and interpretive approaches for generating emancipatory knowledge. The second dimension takes into consideration the kinds of information used natural versus artificial. The continuum consists of empiricism (usage of objective data) at one end and subjectivism (reconstruction of reality) at the other. The researcher directly observes phenomenon by immersing itself in the context of the study in Object reality (e.g., Ethnographic studies). Research conducted pertinent to what people consider object reality is referred to as people s perception of object reality. In the context of the artificial reconstruction of object reality the researcher artificially recasts object reality attempted from one of the two approaches mentioned above (i.e. object reality or people s perception of object reality) using analytical models, computer simulations, or information constructs (Meredith, et al., 1989). Methodology Literature search was based on the citation pearl growing method. This search method happens to be more suitable for methodological and literature reviews in which the more conventional keyword-based search methods could result in a very large number of irrelevant references (Dolan, Shaw, Tsuchiya, and Williams, 2005, p. 198). We used the citation search facilities of the ABI/INFORM, EBSCO s business sources premier databases and through crossreferencing of the identified studies. Our search commenced with the seminal studies of Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Kohli and Jaworski (1990), and Narver and Slater (1990). Jaworski and Kohli (1993) generated 821 citations, Narver and Slater (1990) 54, and Narver and Slater (1990) 2

3 generated 955 studies citation in the ABI/INFORM database. Jaworski and Kohli (1993) generated 1124 citations, Narver and Slater (1990) 1179, and Narver and Slater (1990) generated 1156 studies citation in the EBSCO s business sources premier database. The databases were accessed on 4 February One may infer from the generated citations that every study on MO refers to the two seminal works Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Narver and Slater (1990). These references were content analysed to identify the MO theme as the major focus of the studies. Studies with a dominant MO theme reflected in titles, abstract, and keywords were selected during our final review. Studies that did not have their full texts appear on ABI/INFORM and EBSCO s business source complete databases were excluded from our list as were editorials, comments, and book reviews on MO. The complete bibliography is available on request from the authors. Analysis of the Methodological and Paradigmatic Representation The research methodologies adopted in the identified studies have been analysed along the following dimensions: empirical versus non-empirical, quantitative versus Qualitative, crosssectional versus longitudinal, research designs, hypothesis testing, and data analysis techniques (descriptive analysis, regression analysis, hierarchical regression analysis, ANOVA, factor analysis, path analysis, structural equation modeling). We found empirical, quantitative, crosssection research designs dominating the scholarship in MO. The paradigmatic analysis of MO research in the 95 papers using the operations research paradigm framework is given in table 1. Our analysis of the past studies highlights the fact that the North American journals are predominantly positivist in approach with few interpretive studies reported in them. The European journals, while publishing predominantly positivist studies, are more accommodative of studies using the interpretive approach. Our findings also reflect Deshpande s (1983) lamentation that marketing discipline has come to rely on a dominant theoretical tradition leading to marketing research growing more into theory testing than generating better theories. Table 1: Paradigmatic Representation 3

4 Discussion and Conclusion Hanson and Grimmer (2007) concluded that academic research in marketing remains dominated by a desire to achieve empirical generalisations assuming objective reality. Positivist research is more easily accepted because its research tradition is well established (Hirschman, 1986). Davis, et al., (2013) studied methods diversity in marketing discipline in the top marketing journals and found out unhealthy trend of reliance on quantitative methods. Our study on MO findings are on similar lines indicating methodological myopia. The study reveals the majority of the studies uses survey as research design and regression analysis as the data analysis largely dominated by the structural equation modelling which allows simultanoues multple regression analysis. We also found a dominance of cross-sectional survey designs in the scholarship on MO. Our paradigmatic analysis of the scholarship on MO highlights that positivism holds a dominant position in marketing journals. Few studies on MO report case study as research design adopting an interpretivist paradigm from European journal. MO research is by far dominated by the empiricist tradition of seeking objective knowledge. A common feature of empiricist tradition school of thought is that they believe science as monistic, physicalist and reductionist (Arndt, 1985). Research published on MO in a broad range of academic journals indicates complete reliance on quantitative methods. The desire to have a unified science resulted in hypothetic deductive method in marketing as the only acceptable scientific approach and this study indicates the same trend resulting in MO research. This scientific approach discourages MO research from taking a more critical perspective and alternative research paradigms. MO research by limiting itself to positivist or logical empiricist tradition of research has adopted one dimensional approach to seeking knowledge without appreciating alternate research paradigms. The role of interepretivist research then becomes important to provide explaination for the unique findings. MO research progressed into such vast expansive territories adding innumerable construct into its nomological net without appreciating the extention of market orienation theory through qualitative research. The best way forward for MO research to move forwards is to appreciate and accommodate interpretivist tradition of research for more enrichment and enligtenment. According to kuhn positivist and interpretivist research tradition are incommensurbale, an alternate way of viewing the world has emerged which believes in pragmatism as system of philosophy. The process of seeking and accumulating knowlegde is niether purely inductive or deductive. The inquiry consist of induction to discover patterns followed by deduction to test the theories and abduction to uncover and rely on best possible set of explinations (Morgan, 2007). The application of mixed methods research designs in marketing is still very less despite availability of academic resources and techniques (Harrison & Reilly, 2011). We also found few mixed methods studies being reported on MO predominantly appearing in European journals. We would like to propose that MO researcher needs to adopt diverse research methods to further explicate the meaning of MO. The paper findings suggest that MO research has almost turned out monolithic in its approach to method and research. This approach is useful for theory testing, extending and generating new theory needs to be supplemented from different epistemological and ontological vantage points. 4

5 Directions for Future Research First, there is a paucity of longitudinal studies on MO although almost every study cites their cross-sectional survey research design as limitation. There is a need for more longitudinal studies on MO considering the lag involved in implementation of MO in an organisation and its influence on superior performance. Past research cites resource constraints as the major reason for not conducting longitudinal studies. Second, the importance of MO for competitive advantage and financial performance recurs as a central theme in the literature. However, the literature s focus both in terms of theory and the unit of analysis, is organisation or a strategic business unit (SBU) rather than individuals within the organisation. Past research suggests that organisational constituents vary in terms of their market learning. We find a need for shift in the level of analysis from organisations to individuals or groups and teams. Third, there is a need for the MO research to shift towards a more critical construct of stakeholder orientation. Such a shift could provide fertile ground for future research and advancement in the current marketing thinking. Fourth, we have observed in our analysis the need for methodological pluralism. While MO and its causal linkages with antecedents and consequences have been adequately explored using quantitative methods, the process of developing and implementing MO at organisational, departmental, groups, teams, and individual levels remains underexplored. Developing a process theory of MO would require interpretive approach and qualitative methods. 5

6 References Arndt, J. (1985). On making marketing science more scientific: Role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), Barker, A., Nancarrow, C. & Spackman, N. (2001). Informed eclecticism: A research paradigm for the twenty-first century. International Journal of Market Research, 43, Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Chung, E. & Alagaratnam, S. (2001). Teach ten thousand stars how not to dance: A survey of alternative ontologies in marketing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(4), Davis, D., Golicic, S., Boerstler, C., Choi, S. & Oh, H. (2013). Does marketing research suffer from methods myopia? Journal Of Business Research, 66(9), Deshpande, R. (1983). Paradigms lost: On theory and method in research in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), Dolan, P., Shaw, R., Tsuchiya, A. & Williams, A. (2005). QALY maximization and people's preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Economics, 14(2), Gebhardt, G., Carpenter, G. & Sherry, J. (2006). Creating a market orientation: A longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), Hanson, D. & Grimmer, M. (2007). The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing journals, European Journal of Marketing, 41, Harrison, P. & Shaw, R. (2004). Intra-organizational marketing culture and market orientation: A case study of the implementation of the marketing concept in a public library. Library Management, 25 (8/9), Hirschman, E. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), Hunt, S. (1994). On rethinking marketing: our discipline, our practice, our methods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), Jaworski, B. & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), Kohli, A. & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution (3 rd ed.). Chicago: UCP. Marshall, G. (1994). The concise oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meredith, J., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K. & Kaplan, B. (1989). Alternative research paradigms in operations. Journal of Operations Management, 8(4), Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), Narver, J. C. & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), Orlikowski, W. J. & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1),

7 Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. Taneja, S., Taneja, P. & Gupta, R. (2011). Researches in corporate social responsibility: A review of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies. Journal of Business Ethics,101(3), Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), Yadav, V. & Gupta, R. (2008). A paradigmatic and methodological review of research in outsourcing. Information Resources Management Journal, 21(1),