How the Emphasis on ‘Original’ Empirical Marketing Research Impedes Knowledge Development

Empirical research in marketing should focus on the development of empirical generalizations. Marketers do a huge amount of empirical research, but have little in the way of empirical generalizations. This is primarily because most empirical research consists of ‘original’ or ‘novel’ works looking for significant differences, rather than significant sameness, in unrelated data sets, thus exemplifying the ‘cult of the isolated study’. As a result, the marketing literature is made up largely of uncorroborated, fragmented, ‘one-off’ results. Such results are of little use to marketing practitioners or academicians. We discuss a number of impediments to the development of empirical generalizations – preoccupation with the hypotheticodeductive conception of science, preoccupation with ‘statistical’ rather than ‘empirical’ generalization, the ‘publish or perish’ syndrome in academia, and denigration of replication-with-extension research. We conclude that replication-with-extension research must be championed as the vehicle for discovering empirical generalizations.

[1]  R. Kerin In Pursuit of an Ideal: The Editorial and Literary History of the Journal of Marketing , 1996 .

[2]  Theodore E. Christensen,et al.  Do We Really 'Know' What We Think We Know? A Case Study of Seminal Research and its Subsequent Overgeneralization , 2000 .

[3]  R. Hubbard Communications: The Dangers of Generalising from Published Marketing Studies , 1994 .

[4]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  Empirical Generalizations and Marketing Science: A Personal View , 1995 .

[5]  Robert L. Bangert-Drowns,et al.  Review of developments in meta-analytic method. , 1986 .

[6]  P. Barwise Good Empirical Generalizations , 1995 .

[7]  Charles S. Madden,et al.  How Journal Editors View Replication Research , 1995 .

[8]  F. Bass The Future of Research in Marketing: Marketing Science , 1993 .

[9]  Developing, Disseminating, and Utilizing Marketing Knowledge , 1988 .

[10]  J. Lynch Theory and external validity , 1999 .

[11]  Alan G. Sawyer,et al.  The Significance of Statistical Significance Tests in Marketing Research , 1983 .

[12]  J. A. Nelder,et al.  Statistics, Science and Technology , 1986 .

[13]  Stephen A. Greyser,et al.  Marketing Research and Knowledge Development , 1981 .

[14]  Raymond Hubbard,et al.  An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing , 1996 .

[15]  S. Kerr,et al.  Manuscript Characteristics Which Influence Acceptance for Management and Social Science Journals , 1977 .

[16]  Gilbert A. Churchill Comments on the AMA Task Force Study , 1988 .

[17]  Shelby D. Hunt,et al.  The Nature and Scope of Marketing , 1976 .

[18]  W. Wells Discovery-oriented consumer research. , 1993 .

[19]  A. Ehrenberg,et al.  The Design of Replicated Studies , 1993 .

[20]  Raymond Hubbard,et al.  Statistical Significance with Comments by Editors of Marketing Journals , 2000 .

[21]  S. F. Gardial,et al.  Methods of Knowledge Development in Marketing and Macromarketing , 1990 .

[22]  D. Lykken Statistical significance in psychological research. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Randall L. Schultz,et al.  A Study of Marketing Generalizations , 1980 .

[24]  A S C Ehrenberg,et al.  Generalising a Pricing Effect , 1990 .

[25]  John A. Nelder,et al.  From Statistics to Statistical Science , 1999 .

[26]  A. Ehrenberg,et al.  Predictability and prediction , 1993 .

[27]  R. Murray Lindsay,et al.  Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: An alternative criterion of adequacy☆ , 1995 .

[28]  Raymond Hubbard,et al.  The Historical Growth of Statistical Significance Testing in Psychology--and Its Future Prospects. , 2000 .

[29]  Eric W. K. Tsang,et al.  Replication and Theory Development in Organizational Science: A Critical Realist Perspective , 1999 .

[30]  F. Bass,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations in Marketing , 1995 .

[31]  S. Hunt Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science , 1990 .

[32]  George S. Day,et al.  Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority , 1988 .

[33]  William H. Starbuck,et al.  Keeping a Butterfly and an Elephant in a House of Cards: The Elements of Exceptional Success , 1993 .

[34]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[35]  R. Dhar,et al.  Consumer research: in search of identity. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

[36]  J. Sheth,et al.  Revisiting marketing's lawlike generalizations , 1999 .

[37]  John E. Hunter,et al.  The Desperate Need for Replications , 2001 .

[38]  A. Ehrenberg Theory or Well-Based Results: Which Comes First? , 1994 .

[39]  “Revisiting marketing's lawlike generalizations”: A comment , 1999 .

[40]  Andrew Ehrenberg,et al.  Empirical Generalisations, Theory, and Method , 1995 .

[41]  David W. Stewart,et al.  Testing Statistical Significance Testing: Some Observations of an Agnostic , 2000 .

[42]  Randall L. Schultz,et al.  Principles involving marketing policies: An empirical assessment , 1993 .

[43]  Louis Guttman,et al.  The Illogic of Statistical Inference for Cumulative Science , 1984 .

[44]  J. Cornelissen Academic and Practitioner Theories of Marketing , 2002 .

[45]  William J. McGuire,et al.  A Contextualist Theory of Knowledge: Its Implications for Innovation and Reform in Psychological Research* , 1983 .

[46]  William D. Wells,et al.  The Perils of N = 1 , 2001 .

[47]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Replications and Extensions in Marketing - Rarely Published But Quite Contrary , 1994 .

[48]  J. Nelder,et al.  Statistics for the millennium. From statistics to statistical science. Commentary. Author's of reply , 1999 .

[49]  J. Jacoby Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review , 1978 .