Search results

The purpose of this editorial is to bring together thoughts and opinions from the Editors and Senior Advisory Board of EJM regarding the nature of the long‐debated “theory‐practice divide” in marketing scholarship.

The authors synthesise diverse opinions from senior academics in order both to inspire further debate in marketing scholarship, and to draw some important conclusions for marketing academia as a whole.

The authors propose that, for marketing scholarship to mature and progress, room must be found for those who wish to focus both on practical and on pure marketing scholarship. Career advancement from both routes is vital.

The topic of the theory‐practice gap is complex. Many diverse opinions are cited and, due to space constraints, the coverage of many issues is necessarily brief.

Scholars should find the thoughts contained in the paper of significant interest.

The paper appears to be the first to bring together such a set of diverse opinions on the subject, and to try to draw some overall pragmatic conclusions, while still recognising the multiplicity of valid thought in the area.

This paper aims to respond to John Rossiter's call for a “Marketing measurement revolution” in the current issue of EJM, as well as providing broader comment on Rossiter's C‐OAR‐SE framework, and measurement practice in marketing in general.

The paper is purely theoretical, based on interpretation of measurement theory.

The authors find that much of Rossiter's diagnosis of the problems facing measurement practice in marketing and social science is highly relevant. However, the authors find themselves opposed to the revolution advocated by Rossiter.

The paper presents a comment based on interpretation of measurement theory and observation of practices in marketing and social science. As such, the interpretation is itself open to disagreement.

There are implications for those outside academia who wish to use measures derived from academic work as well as to derive their own measures of key marketing and other social variables.

This paper is one of the few to explicitly respond to the C‐OAR‐SE framework proposed by Rossiter, and presents a number of points critical to good measurement theory and practice, which appear to remain underdeveloped in marketing and social science.

The purpose of this editorial is to stimulate debate and discussion amongst marketing scholarship regarding the implications for scientific research of increasingly large amounts of data and sophisticated data analytic techniques.

The authors respond to a recent editorial in WIRED magazine which heralds the demise of the scientific method in the face of the vast data sets now available.

The authors propose that more data makes theory more important, not less. They differentiate between raw prediction and scientific knowledge – which is aimed at explanation.

These thoughts are preliminary and intended to spark thinking and debate, not represent editorial policy. Due to space constraints, the coverage of many issues is necessarily brief.

Marketing researchers should find these thoughts at the very least stimulating, and may wish to investigate these issues further.

This piece should provide some interesting food for thought for marketing researchers.

The purpose of this editorial is to announce the winners of the EJM Reviewer of the Year awards, and also to make some observations about successful and effective practice in reviewing scholarly work.

The authors draw from their own experience as reviewers, authors, and editors to provide a set of considerations for those involved in the review process.

The authors propose a set of guidelines for reviewers who wish to make the most of their role in the scientific method.

These thoughts are preliminary, and are drawn from personal experiences rather than a wide‐ranging survey of stakeholders.

Marketing researchers should ensure that they understand their role in the scholarly reviewing process, and that they provide timely and constructive comments on their areas of expertise.

This piece should offer marketing researchers considerable value in the context of their own efforts, both as authors and reviewer.

To bring to the fore, the importance of observational methods in research in marketing.

A synthesis and reflective comments based on experience of the use of qualitative methods.

Research in marketing tends to stick to mainstream, verbal methods (words and numbers) which do not give deep enough access to marketing reality. As the bulk of communication is non‐verbal more use of observation, researcher involvement and direct experience is called for.

Recommended use of more observational methods among researchers in marketing.

Closer access to marketing reality provided by observational methods can offer practitioners better market data and better marketing models and theory and thus an improved base for decisions and action.

Especially, to put demand on academic researchers and market research institutes to offer insights that go beyond mere words and numbers.

The purpose of this editorial is to provide guidance to EJM authors about the structure and presentation of manuscripts that are likely to be insightful and that will probably provide contributions to knowledge.

The approach is editorial advice based on the Editors' experience of receiving circa 500 manuscripts during their first year as Joint Editors of EJM, but which is also consistent with guidance in other leading journals.

Guidance is provided for authors when preparing and revising their manuscripts, which is also a basis for further discussion and exchange concerning the effectiveness of communicating research outcomes.

The guidance is based on the views of the EJM Joint Editors, although it is consistent with other leading journals.

Hopefully, authors will find the guidance helpful, although the editors emphasise that it is guidance and not a strict prescription that must be obeyed.

Hopefully, the editorial provides more “food for thought” for authors.

The purpose of this editorial is to comment on the paper by Saunders and Wong in this issue. In doing so, the paper reflects on the notion of academic quality within marketing research, along with the systems in place to evaluate and reward it.

The paper takes a reflective, discursive approach.

The author finds that, while Saunders and Wong make a number of pertinent observations, and come up with interesting solutions, the notion of academic quality espoused in their paper is based on a logically flawed set of arguments.

The paper is primarily a personal view, and thus does not rely on any empirical research.

There are key implications for many parties involved in the creation and assessment of marketing knowledge. In particular, scholars would be well advised to consider notions of quality in relation to their own work, rather than rely unquestioningly on existing definitions. Policy makers and research managers (e.g. business school deans) also need to consider what quality in academic research really is, and how to appropriately direct and reward it.

The paper provides another perspective on the well‐established debate regarding quality, and thus it is hoped will stimulate further thinking.

To describe the utility of three of the main cognitive neuroscientific techniques currently in use within the neuroscience community, and how they can be applied to the emerging field of neuromarket research.

A brief development of functional magnetic resonance imaging, magnetoencephalography and transcranial magnetic stimulation are described, as the core principles are behind their respective use. Examples of actual data from each of the brain imaging techniques are provided to assist the neuromarketer with subsequent data for interpretation. Finally, to ensure the neuromarketer has an understanding of the experience of neuroimaging, qualitative data from a questionnaire exploring attitudes about neuroimaging techniques are included which summarize participants' experiences of having a brain scan.

Cognitive neuroscientific techniques have great utility in market research and can provide more “honest” indicators of consumer preference where traditional methods such as focus groups can be unreliable. These techniques come with complementary strengths which allow the market researcher to converge onto a specific research question. In general, participants considered brain imaging techniques to be relatively safe. However, care is urged to ensure that participants are positioned correctly in the scanner as incorrect positioning is a stressful factor during an imaging procedure that can impact data quality.

This paper is an important and comprehensive resource to the market researcher who wishes to use cognitive neuroscientific techniques.

The paper presents a framework for establishing equivalence of international marketing data. The framework is meant to reduce confusion about equivalence issues, and guide the design of international studies and data analysis.

A short overview is given of the two main approaches to equivalence in the literature. These are integrated and used to distinguish sources of cultural bias in the various stages of the research process.

The highest levels of equivalence most often established are construct equivalence and partial measurement equivalence, implying that distributions of scores obtained in various countries cannot be interpreted at face value. To understand cross‐cultural differences better, researchers should investigate why higher levels of equivalence could not be established; this can be done best by including elements from both the conceptual and the measurement approach to equivalence.

This study can help marketing managers to establish the extent to which consumer perceptions can be considered equal across countries. Moreover, it helps researchers to determine causes of unequivalence and relate these to concrete stages in the research process.

Integration of the two main approaches to equivalence will lead to a better understanding of the validity of cross‐cultural differences and similarities. This should lead to improved decision making in international marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer emotions and the social science and observation measures that can be utilised to capture the emotional experiences of consumers. The paper is not setting out to solve the theoretical debate surrounding emotion research, rather to provide an assessment of methodological options available to researchers to aid their investigation into both the structure and content of the consumer emotional experience, acknowledging both the conscious and subconscious elements of that experience.

A review of a wide range of prior research from the fields of marketing, consumer behaviour, psychology and neuroscience are examined to identify the different observation methods available to marketing researchers in the study of consumer emotion. This review also considers the self report measures available to researchers and identifies the main theoretical debates concerning emotion to provide a comprehensive overview of the issues surrounding the capture of emotional responses in a marketing context and to highlight the benefits that observation methods offer this area of research.

This paper evaluates three observation methods and four widely used self report measures of emotion used in a marketing context. Whilst it is recognised that marketers have shown preference for the use of self report measures in prior research, mainly due to ease of implementation, it is posited that the benefits of observation methodology and the wealth of data that can be obtained using such methods can compliment prior research. In addition, the use of observation methods cannot only enhance our understanding of the consumer emotion experience but also enable us to collaborate with researchers from other fields in order to make progress in understanding emotion.

This paper brings perspectives and methods together to provide an up to date consideration of emotion research for marketers. In order to generate valuable research in this area there is an identified need for discussion and implementation of the observation techniques available to marketing researchers working in this field. An evaluation of a variety of methods is undertaken as a point to start discussion or consideration of different observation techniques and how they can be utilised.