Search results

This study aims to correct errors in, and comment on the claims made in the comment papers of Rigdon (2022) and Henseler and Schuberth (2022), and to tidy up any substantive oversights made in Cadogan and Lee (2022).

The study discusses and clarifies the gap between Rigdon’s notion of scientific realism and the metaphysical, semantic and epistemological commitments that are broadly agreed to be key principles of scientific realism. The study also examines the ontological status of the variables that Henseler and Schuberth claim are emergent using emergence logic grounded in the notion that variables are only truly emergent if they demonstrate a failure of generative atomism.

In scientific realism, hypothetical causal contact between the unobserved and the observed is a key foundational stance, and as such, Rigdon’s concept proxy framework (CPF) is inherently anti-realist in nature. Furthermore, Henseler and Schuberth’s suggestion that composite-creating statistical packages [such as partial least squares (PLS)] can model emergent variables should be treated with skepticism by realists.

Claims made by Rigdon regarding the realism of CPF are unfounded, and claims by Henseler and Schuberth regarding the universal suitability of partial least squares (PLS) as a tool for use by researchers of all ontological stripes (see their Table 5) do not appear to be well-grounded.

Those aspiring to do science according to the precepts of scientific realism need to be careful in assessing claims in the literature. For instance, despite Rigdon’s assertion that CPF is a realist framework, we show that it is not. Consequently, some of Rigdon’s core criticisms of the common factor logic make no sense for the realist. Likewise, if the variables resulting from composite creating statistical packages (like PLS) are not really emergent (contrary to Henseler and Schuberth) and so are not real, their utility as tools for scientific realist inquiry are called into question.

This study assesses PLS using the Eleatic Principle and examines H&S’s version of emergent variables from an ontological perspective.

To grow, any field of research must both encourage newcomers to work within its boundaries, and help them learn to conduct excellent research within the field’s parameters. This paper aims to examine whether the existing body of neuromarketing literature can support such growth. Specifically, the authors attempt to replicate how a newcomer to the field of neuromarketing would go about orienting themselves to the field and learn how to conduct excellent neuromarketing research.

A total of 131 papers, published in the areas of “neuromarketing” and “consumer neuroscience” were downloaded and then identified as conceptual or empirical in nature. A separate database was created for each type of research paper and information was recorded. For both conceptual and empirical papers, the citation details, notably year of publication, journal, journal ranking and impact factor were recorded. Papers were then descriptively analysed with regards to number of publications over the years, content and journal quality.

It is found that interest in the field is growing, with a greater variety of topics and methods appearing year on year. However, the authors also identify some issues of concern for the field if it wishes to sustain this growth. First, the highly fragmented literature and the lack of signposting makes it very difficult for newcomers to find the relevant work and journal outlets. Second, there is a lack of high-quality, user-oriented methodological primers that a newcomer would come across. Finally, neuromarketing as it appears to a newcomer suffers from a lack of clear guidance on what defines good vs bad neuromarketing research. As a large majority of the reviewed papers have appeared in lower-ranked journals, newcomers might get a biased view on the acceptable research standards in the field.

The insights from the analysis inform a tentative agenda for future work which gives neuromarketing itself greater scientific purpose, and the potential to grow into a better-established field of study within marketing as a whole.

This study aims to provide a response to the commentary by Yuan on the paper “Marketing or Methodology” in this issue of EJM.

Conceptual argument and statistical discussion.

The authors find that some of Yuan’s arguments are incorrect, or unclear. Further, rather than contradicting the authors’ conclusions, the material provided by Yuan in his commentary actually provides additional reasons to avoid partial least squares (PLS) in marketing research. As such, Yuan’s commentary is best understood as additional evidence speaking against the use of PLS in real-world research.

This rejoinder, coupled with Yuan’s comment, continues to support the strong implication that researchers should avoid using PLS in marketing and related research.

Marketing researchers should avoid using PLS in their work.

This rejoinder supports the earlier conclusions of “Marketing or Methodology,” with additional argumentation and evidence.

Over the past 20 years, partial least squares (PLS) has become a popular method in marketing research. At the same time, several methodological studies have demonstrated problems with the technique but have had little impact on its use in marketing research practice. This study aims to present some of these criticisms in a reader-friendly way for non-methodologists.

Key critiques of PLS are summarized and demonstrated using existing data sets in easily replicated ways. Recommendations are made for assessing whether PLS is a useful method for a given research problem.

PLS is fundamentally just a way of constructing scale scores for regression. PLS provides no clear benefits for marketing researchers and has disadvantages that are features of the original design and cannot be solved within the PLS framework itself. Unweighted sums of item scores provide a more robust way of creating scale scores.

The findings strongly suggest that researchers abandon the use of PLS in typical marketing studies.

This paper provides concrete examples and techniques to practicing marketing and social science researchers regarding how to incorporate composites into their work, and how to make decisions regarding such.

This work presents a novel perspective on PLS critiques by showing how researchers can use their own data to assess whether PLS (or another composite method) can provide any advantage over simple sum scores. A composite equivalence index is introduced for this purpose.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the author’s decade-long tenure as the Editor of the European Journal of Marketing (EJM). The paper presents his thoughts on the past 10 years of marketing scholarship, his views on future directions and some advice for those looking to publish their research in academic journals.

The paper takes a reflective, discursive approach, and also reviews a wide range of topics relevant to marketing researchers.

The author finds that EJM has grown substantially on many levels in the past decade. He also finds that there are some concerns around marketing research, and social scientific scholarship in general, that marketing scholars may wish to consider and take into account in their ongoing work.

The paper is partly a personal view, and does not rely on any empirical research. However, the views espoused are justified by theoretical review and conceptual argument.

The implications of this paper are relevant to marketing scholars, journal reviewers, readers of research, as well as those who manage scholarship (e.g. university administrators). The author suggests a number of directions that the research, publication and reward process could move in to improve practice.

The paper brings together a large number of different views and concepts relevant to further development of marketing research, and provides original summaries and extensions.

This study aims to determine whether partial least squares path modeling (PLS) is fit for purpose for scholars holding scientific realist views.

The authors present the philosophical foundations of scientific realism and constructivism and examine the extent to which PLS aligns with them.

PLS does not align with scientific realism but aligns well with constructivism.

Research is needed to assess PLS’s fit with instrumentalism and pragmatism.

PLS has no utility as a realist scientific tool but may be of interest to constructivists.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to assess PLS’s alignments and mismatches with constructivist and scientific realist perspectives.

Recent years have witnessed a rise in interest in neuromarketing from academia and industry, as it offers practical tools for determining consumers' subconscious reactions to marketing stimuli. Despite this, the current state of neuromarketing research is not well supported by empirical data. To offer a thorough overview of the studies conducted on this discipline in the past few years, a bibliometric analysis of neuromarketing is carried out, taking into account its techniques, key areas and publication patterns trends from several viewpoints.

This study searched 463 documents for the web of science databases published during the previous sixteen years and visualized them. The graphical display of data was created using the VOS Viewer software.

Electroencephalogram (EEG) appeared as a predominantly tool used in neuromarketing research. EEG is either used alone or together with Human Eye-Tracking (HET). “Emotions” was identified in the study as a crucial area of neuromarketing, among other pertinent concepts. The study's results also showed that authors from the United States produced the most articles on neuromarketing, followed by those from the United Kingdom and Spain. The publishing trend, sources and major contributors in neuromarketing are identified using Web of Science data from 2006 to 2021. Overall, the research provides insight into neuromarketing's past, present and future as well as the most widely utilized analytical techniques.

The study's conclusions will be of interest to researchers in understanding the journals that publish neuromarketing research, the themes that contributors and writers have identified, and the countries where research is carried out. This is the first comprehensive study, to the authors' knowledge, that provides a general summary of the key trends in neuromarketing research throughout its history. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first thorough study that offers a broad overview of the most important developments in neuromarketing research from 2006 to 2021.

This case arose from the 1995 collapse of the Barings Banking Group caused by the enormous losses resulting from Nick Lee‐son's unauthorised derivatives trading in Singapore, while general manager of Barings Futures (Singapore) Ltd. The holding company of the Barings Group, Barings plc, and a number of its subsidiaries were placed in administration as soon as the scale of the losses became apparent and in July 1995 the administrators submitted a report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as they were bound to do by s.7(3) of the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986). Section 6 CDDA 1986 provides that it is the duty of the court to disqualify unfit directors of insolvent companies: