Reviews and discusses the role of national culture in international marketing research. Special emphasis is given to national cultural frameworks. The two main national…
Reviews and discusses the role of national culture in international marketing research. Special emphasis is given to national cultural frameworks. The two main national cultural frameworks – the Hofstede and the Schwartz – are discussed. Their interrelations are examined and four comprehensive national‐cultural dimensions are derived – autonomy versus collectivism, egalitarianism versus hierarchy, mastery versus nurturance, and uncertainty avoidance. The usefulness of national culture as an analytical basis in international marketing research is discussed and the construct of national culture is placed in the context of layers of culture, ranging from global cultures to micro cultures. Acculturation processes to other national cultures and antecedents of national culture are examined. The paper ends with concluding remarks and suggestions for future research.
This paper provides a balanced commentary on Rossiter’s paper “How to use C-OAR-SE to design optimal standard measures” in this issue of the “European Journal of…
This paper provides a balanced commentary on Rossiter’s paper “How to use C-OAR-SE to design optimal standard measures” in this issue of the “European Journal of Marketing”. It also relates the comments in general to Rossiter’s other C-OAR-SE work and throws light on a number of key measurement issues that seem under-appreciated at present in marketing and business research.
The authors use conceptual argument based on measurement theory and philosophy of science.
The authors find that Rossiter’s work makes a number of important points that are necessary in the current stage of development of marketing and social science. However, the authors also find that many of these points are also well made by fundamental measurement theories. When measurement theory is correctly interpreted, the idea of multiple measures of the same thing is not problematic. However, they show that existing social science measurement practice rarely takes account of the important issues at play here.
The authors show that marketing, management and social science researchers need to get better in terms of their appreciation of measurement theory and in their practices of measurement.
The authors identify a number of areas where marketing and social science measurement can be improved, taking account of the important aspects of C-OAR-SE and incorporating them in good practice, without needlessly avoiding existing good practices.