SEMINAR ON SERVICE MARKETING Tracy Mary - Nancy LOGO
John O. Summers Indiana University Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization through the Review Process
Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 Introduction Scholarly research on substantive issues in marketing 43 Crafting manuscripts for scholarly journals in marketing The state of research in marketing: some personal observations Reviewing for scholarly journals in marketing Summary
INTRODUCTION
Introduction Mission Generation of knowledge Dissemination of knowledge
low acceptance rates need to increase the quality of the research manuscripts produced
GUIDELINES Developing research skills conceptualizing the study responding to reviewers writing the manuscript Research in marketing constructing the research design
Reasons for rejecting manuscripts 1. The research questions being investigated are not very interesting 2. The research, although well executed, does not appear to make a sufficiently large contribution to the literature 3. The conceptual framework is not well developed 4. The methodology is seriously flawed 5. The writing is so confused
SCHOLARLY RESEARCH ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN MARKETING
SCHOLARLY RESEARCH ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN MARKETING 1 Develop a Broad Set of Methodological Skills 2 Learn to Be a Critical Reader of the Literature 3 Focus on Developing Hypotheses to Be Tested 4 Use the Literature to Stimulate Your Thinking
SCHOLARLY RESEARCH ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN MARKETING 5 Put It on Paper 6 7 8 Don t Work in Isolation Develop Precise Conceptual Definitions for the Constructs Evaluate the Hypotheses
SCHOLARLY RESEARCH ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN MARKETING 9 10 11 Identify the Intended Contributions Designing the Empirical Study Pretesting Questionnaires 12 Pretesting Experiments
1. Develop a Broad Set of Methodological Skills Reasons Becoming a productive researcher Providing long-term benefits
2. Learn to Be a Critical Reader of the Literature 1 2 Becoming practiced in reading the literature in a critical way Opportunities for making contributions to the research area of interest
3. Focus on Developing Hypotheses to Be Tested 1 2 3 4 Developing some structure for researcher s conceptual frameworks Constructing boundaries for empirical studies Determining articles in researchers general area of interest Given to the potential contribution
4. Use the Literature to Stimulate Your Thinking 1 2 3 Stimulating one s thinking over that of normally understanding Why different studies may have created How existing conceptual frameworks might be improved
5. Put It on Paper Writing down ideas Identifying the problems in their current thinking, resolving Put It on Paper Put It on Paper Put It on Paper More aware of ambiguities in their thinking Getting constructive feedback
6. Don t Work in Isolation 1 2 Clarifying thoughts, identifying problems, discovering new ideas Especially beneficial
7. Develop Precise Conceptual Definitions for the Constructs Developing constructs Avoid developing pseudodefinitions A coherent theory A valid measure of a construct Contents Incomplete listing of the construct s content Failing to indicate
8. Evaluate the Hypotheses Are the hypotheses clearly written? Is each of the hypotheses falsifiable? Do any of the hypotheses involve truism or tautologies? Are any of the hypotheses less important in the sense that others would be likely to question the methodology of any study that reported negative results?
8. Evaluate the Hypotheses Is the theoretical rationale provided for each hypothesis compelling? Are there any additional theoretical arguments that would strengthen the conceptual support for the hypotheses? Do the hypotheses to be tested represent a cohesive set?
9. Identify the Intended Contributions 1 2 3 4 Conceptual contributions Empirical contributions Methodological contributions Laboratory experiments, methodological contributions
9.1 Conceptual contributions 1. Improved conceptual definitions 2. Identification, conceptual definition of additional constructs 3. Development of additional theoretical linkages 4. Development of improved theoretical rationale Conceptual contributions
9.2 Empirical contributions (1) (2) (3) Testing a theoretical linkage Examining the effects of a potential moderator variable Determining the degree to a variable (4) Investigating the psychometric properties
9.3 Methodological contributions Potential problems with shared method variance Generalizability of the research Investigation of the rationality Construct validity of key measures
9.4 Laboratory experiments, methodological contributions Internal, ecological, external validity of the experiment Construct validity of the putative causes and effects Statistical conclusion validity; Experimental realism of the experiment Rationality of demand artifacts
10. Designing the Empirical Study Time to design Conceptual framework has been set Intended contributions of the study determined Before researchers collect data
11. Pretesting Questionnaires Not very rigorous; a false sense Limited in the time, no enthusiasm Not be sufficiently skilled Reasons Reluctant to be critical Using multiple-item scales
12. Pretesting Experiments Pretesting the measures 1 2 3 4 Sufficient amount of experimental realism Containing demand artifacts Providing intended variance Causing unintended variance in other variables Conducting more rigorous pretest
CRAFTING MANUSCRIPTS FOR SCHOLARLY JOURNALS IN MARKETING
1 Introduction Selling the study 2 3 4 Writing quality A creative and insightful discussion and conclusions section Self-edit the manuscript 5 6 Request critical feedback before submission Responding to the reviewers
1. Introduction Selling the study For selling the study, authors should convince readers, firstly reviewers. Authors should emphasize the importance of their study.
2. Writing quality Writing quality is a reflection of the clarity of the author s thoughts. Including: Tight logic No ambiguous and confusing passages. Conciseness To be cautious when using references. Review related the literature
3. A creative and insightful discussion and conclusions section Reaffirming The importance of the study The study s contributions Clearly explainations Adding supported data Speculation Discussion and conclusions section Presenting interested ideas Providing new issues Giving insightful directions
4. Self-edit the manuscript 1. Self-edith after a short break time 2. Asking about the point of view of outsiders Well prepared manuscript 3. Supposing about student s opinions
5. Request critical feedback before submission Selecting positive reviewers Getting excellent feedbacks Receiving valuable guidances Before submission Before submission Before submission
6. Responding to the reviewers 1 2 3 4 - Overcoming the natural tendency of negative responding - Developing a pragmatic approach - Examining the comments - Considering the writing if reviewers s questions about covered issues - - Looking for trends in each reviewer s comments and recurring themes across reviewers - Positive response - Professional and courteous communication - Preparing a set of revision notes for each reviewer
THE STATE OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING: SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
THE STATE OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING
Advantage Researchers are giving increased attention to providing a solid theoretical base for their studies. Theories developed in other disciplines have been widely used for this purpose. Purely descriptive studies have all but disappeared. More thought is also being given to how a given study fits into the existing literature and what contribution it makes Because today s research studies are more theory based and tightly linked to the literature, the results of these individual studies are more easily generalized to other contexts.
Advantage Today s quantitative studies are more rigorously designed than past research. More attention is being given to the development and/or use of multiple-item measures of the central constructs and to providing evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the measures used in the study, primarily internal-consistency measures of reliability (e.g., coefficientα) Greater attention is being paid to selecting subjects that are appropriate for the research question of interest. Finally, the results of today s studies are less open to alternative interpretations than past studies.
Disadvantage Theory building research; Claims regarding convergent and discriminant validity; Use of single-source, self-report data; Experimental realism.
Lack of Theory-Building Research
Factor 1 Most of doctoral programs do not do a good job of teaching the qualitative research methods Many doctoral programs devote very little time to these methods As a result, most graduates are not skilled at theory-building research.
Factor 2 Many in discipline appear to believe that qualitative research is inherently not as rigorous or prestigious as quantitative research and, therefore, the results are difficult to publish. Few doctoral dissertations are based on qualitative research, and one seldom sees a rigorous qualitative research study published in any of the leading research journals in marketing. For too many of the qualitative studies published in the past two decades, it is difficult, if not impossible, for other researchers to determine whether the authors conclusions are adequately supported by the data collected and/or to replicate the authors findings.
Psychometric Properties of Measures
Psychometric Properties of Measures The vast majority of authors claims regarding the convergent validity of their measures are unwarranted Tests for discriminant validity are typically very weak, and test-retest reliability is rarely examined. Using the same inter-item correlations as evidence of both reliability and convergent validity. The researchers have sacrificed the content validity of some of their measures by deleting items in their initial scales to develop unidimensional scales. Researchers need to give more consideration to using formative scales.
Single-Source Self-Report Data Too many involve self-reports and/or keyinformant reports from a single source. Data are never collected from any other source The survey respondents provide measures for both the independent and the dependent variables Involving self-reports and/or key informants relates to the consistency motif. Respondents have an urge to provide answers that they feel are logically consistent. Respondents will often have lay theories of how the variables of interest should be related
Experimental Realism The most frequent and serious problem Experiments that ask the participants to role-play without previously having had similar task related experiences The respondents are most likely to tell the experimenter what they feel is a reasonable response but participants are not always able to predict how they would behave in a given situation
REVIEWING FOR SCHOLARLY JOURNALS IN MARKETING
Reviewers Who are they? Reviewers are the targets of authors anger Reviewers provide an indispensable service to the discipline. Most reviewers are among the most prolific authors in the field. They want to help the discipline advance: Because they feel they owe it to their discipline. Because of the prestige of being a member of an editorial board Because they enjoy the reviewing process
Guidelines for reviewers 1. Clearly identify all of the major problems 2. When making global evaluations provide specific examples supporting these evaluations. 3. Indicate which problems are major and which are minor. 4. Indicate which flaws appear to be correctable and which are not. 5. For correctable flaws, indicate what might be done to fix them.
Guidelines for reviewers 6. For uncorrectable flaws, indicate which should be discussed in the Limitations section. 7. If the manuscript is considered to be potentially publishable with revisions, clearly indicate what must be done to make the article acceptable. 8. When recommending rejection of an article, specify the specific reasons (e.g., uncorrectable flaws). Provide a convincing argument as to why these flaws justify rejecting the manuscript.
Guidelines for reviewers 11. Avoid suggesting that the authors cite literature that is only loosely related to the research issues of interest. 12. Avoid asking the authors to cite the reviewer s articles unless they are central to the research. 13. Be open to alternative paradigms for studying the research questions of interest. 14. Allow the authors some flexibility to write the article they want to write. 15. Provide timely reviews (i.e., within 30 days).
SUMMARY
Summary Paying careful attention to doing the best job possible at every step of the research and publication process. Starting with developing the research idea through preparing the final revision of the manuscript. The success of each step is dependent on the steps that preceded it
Summary Check the adequacy of each completed aspect of their studies before proceeding to the next stage Seeking feedback from colleagues Feedback is only helpful when it is solicited from those with high levels of expertise Being responsive to criticism is especially critical when going through the review process at a major journal.
Summary Not to argue with the reviewers, ignores the reviewers comments, and/or otherwise fails to adequately address the reviewers and editor s concerns and incorporate their suggestions in the revised manuscript Research in marketing has improved greatly both conceptually and methodologically during the past quarter century.
Summary Research in marketing has improved greatly both conceptually and methodologically during the past quarter century. Theory building research; Claims regarding convergent and discriminant validity; Use of single-source, self-report data; Experimental realism.
LOGO