Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the evolution of empirical research methods in Journal of Services Marketing (JSM), how the choice of methodology is related to the research topic, and how methodology affects the impact of papers published in JSM.

Based on citation data from Scopus, bibliometric methods are used to describe the methodological evolution of literature over the period 1987-2017. Indicator correlations and logistic regression are used to test the methodological predispositions of research topics. Negative binomial regression is used to test the impact of paper methodology on paper citations on 1,036 papers.

Qualitative research methods have remained relatively rarely used in JSM (7.5 per cent qualitative papers, 13.4 per cent mixed methods), with no major changes over the past 15 years. The variety of research methods has slightly increased in the latest years. There are considerable differences in the methodological predispositions of research topics. The methodology does not directly affect the impact of papers. However, use of mixed methods may positively affect paper impact. Papers focusing on conceptual development tend to be cited more.

The review indicates that quantitative methods dominate research in JSM. However, future research challenges in service marketing research call for a reconsideration of the role of qualitative research for JSM. Findings point out that several research topics could benefit from further qualitative research.

Provides an overview of the latest development in research methodologies used in JSM, and direct statistical evidence on how paper methodology and other characteristics influence paper impact. Identifies areas for further qualitative research.

The study aims to promote the use of qualitative methods in service research by investigating how these methods are reported in service journals, how the level of reporting has evolved and whether methodological reporting influences the downloads or citations received by qualitative articles.

Methodological reporting practices were identified through content analysis of 318 qualitative articles published in three major service research journals and comparison with prior methodological literature. Regression analysis was used to test how the level of methodological reporting influences article downloads and citations.

The study identifies 29 reporting practices related to 9 key methodological reporting areas. The overall level of methodological reporting in published qualitative articles has increased over time. While differences in the level of reporting between service journals persist, they are narrowing. The level of methodological reporting did not influence downloads or citations of qualitative articles.

Service scholars using qualitative methods should pay attention to methodological reporting as it can improve the chances of being published. Factors such as theoretical contributions are likely to have a greater influence on article impact than methodological reporting.

No prior study has explored methodological reporting practices across different qualitative methodologies or how reporting influences article impact. For authors, reviewers and editors, the study provides an inventory of reporting practices relevant for evaluating qualitative articles, which should lower barriers for qualitative methods in service research by providing practical guidelines on what to focus on when reporting and assessing qualitative research.

This paper aims to offer an insight into the emergent qualitative methodological profile and its distinctive contribution to accounting and management scholarship, particularly reflecting upon the contribution of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM).

It examines the range of qualitative methodologies employed in the research published across the ten years of QRAM and analyses the methodological discourse and its contribution to the armoury available to qualitative researchers. In association with these methodological developments, the paper offers a critique of the articulated role of theory in contemporary accounting and management qualitative research.

A wide range of qualitative methodologies are found to be in evidence, with considerable scope for further adoption and development of some. Methodological exposition papers are found to be a significant contribution in the past decade and include methodological framework building, methodological applications, methodological critiques, and methodological development exemplars. Alongside methodology, the dual role of theory as either informing or reflecting methodology is presented.

The paper provides a critical analysis and consideration of qualitative methodological literature development in the last ten years of accounting and management research literature, particularly reflected in QRAM. It identifies dominant methodologies in use, as well as opportunities for expanding the methodological menu in accounting and management research. Furthermore, it classifies groups of methodological papers and their contributing perspectives, as well as addressing the often-vexed relationship between theory and methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to deliver an introduction to the Special Issue on new qualitative research methodologies in management.

The reasons of interest for the object of this Special Issue are explained through the discussion of a selected literature. Technological and sociological changes are considered as a source of new problem and new opportunities for management and management research. The traditional methods are put under strain by these changes and epistemological implications are considered.

New qualitative methodologies analyzed in the Special Issue are characterized by drivers including hybridization with others methods, both qualitative and quantitative. New methods can contribute to reduce distance between researcher's and practitioner's context.

A frame to analyze the new qualitative management research through the papers published in the Special Issue.

Built environment research consists of cognitive and affective, as well as behavioural, components. Existing built environment research utilises either strong qualitative or, more often, strong quantitative methodologies. Aims to discuss some of the philosophical issues that would be considered when undertaking academic research into the built environment. Considers the available research options or paradigms and suggests ways in which a researcher can make an informed and sensible decision as to how to proceed. The main dimensions of the debate about the relative characteristics and merits of quantitative and qualitative methodology are outlined, developing the argument that the use of a single methodology often fails to explore all of these components. The use of a mixed methods approach is suggested to counteract this weakness and to enhance research into the built environment.

The purpose of this reflective paper is to discuss and reflect and in the process celebrate the development of a qualitative research stream which continues to interrogate the unusual topic of illegal rural enterprise. The authors discuss how a common interest in rural entrepreneurship and rural criminology led to a very productive and continuing research collaborations.

To discuss, reflect and evaluate several qualitative methodologies arising out of a research stream into illegal rural enterprise.

The findings are tentative and subjective in nature but the authors strongly believe that writing qualitatively over a number of related topics and over several published articles legitimises the use of niche qualitative research methods and methodologies. Ultimately it will help develop robust methodologies. The authors agree that just as there is no single, universally applicable theorisation of entrepreneurial behaviours, actions and antics there is no single qualitative methodology that provides constant explanations.

This reflective paper being a subjective and emotive rhetorical piece has obvious limitations in that the advice proffered may be strongly disputed by research managers and heads of department trying to build an orthodox research output. Also the understanding of qualitative research may differ from that of other scholars. This is surely cause for celebration! This will help the authors better understand the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship.

By discussing and celebrating a qualitatively driven research stream rather than discussing individual qualitative publications in isolation this reflection makes a contribution. The professional and institutional pressures to conform to productive mainstream research topics capable of publication in top tier journals poses a danger to the practice of conducting qualitative research which exist at the margins of individual disciplines. It is hoped that this discussion will act as an inspirational beacon to others to pursue research agendas for which they have a passion.

This reflective piece identifies and discusses an under researched area of entrepreneurship research namely how to craft and develop a unified qualitative research stream at the margins of entrepreneurship research.

The purpose of this paper is to set the scene for this special issue by synthesising the vast array of literature to examine what constitutes mixed methods research, and the associated strengths and risks attributed to this approach.

This paper takes the form of a literature review. The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies. They review a number of accounting studies that adopt mixed methods research approaches. This allows the authors to analyse variance in how mixed methods research is conceptualised across these studies and evaluate the perceived strengths and limitations of specific mixed methods design choices.

The authors identify a range of opportunities and challenges in the conduct of mixed methods research and illustrate these by reference to both published studies and the other contributions to this special issue.

With the exception of Modell's work, there is sparse discussion of the application and potential of mixed methods research in the extant accounting literature.

This research aims to investigate how preference for marketing research methodology (quantitative vs qualitative) is contingent on the thinking orientation (analytic vs holistic) of the researchers.

Thinking orientation was measured and then manipulated in laboratory experiments. Cross-cultural evidence was sought by comparing Western and East Asian participants.

Results demonstrate that researchers with an analytic (holistic) thinking orientation tend to perceive quantitative (qualitative) methodology more favorably. Further, the need to offer reasons in support of the choice strengthened the effect of thinking orientation.

Understanding researchers’ preferences for one research methodology over the other has broad relevance for external constituents, as it involves a great deal of managerial commitment in terms of time and money and can affect the results of the research.

This is the first study to investigate factors that underlie researchers’ choice regarding research methodology, and it also extends the literature on analytic versus holistic thinking orientation in the marketing field.

The purpose of this study is to highlight the role of qualitative research in service research. This study discusses what qualitative research is, what role it has in service research and what interest, rigor, relevance and richness mean for qualitative service research.

This study examines the most common qualitative research methods and discusses interest, rigor, relevance and richness as key characteristics of qualitative research. The manuscripts in the special issue are introduced and categorized based on their contributions to service research.

The findings suggest that the amount of research using qualitative research methods has remained stable over the last 30 years. An increased focus on transparency and traceability is important for improving the perceived rigor of qualitative service research.

This special issue is the first issue that is explicitly devoted to the qualitative research methodology in service research. In particular, the issue seeks to contribute to a better use and application of qualitative research methodology.

To provide guidance for the formalised analysis of qualitative data and observations, to raise awareness about systematic analysis and illustrate promising avenues for the application of qualitative methodologies in international marketing research.

Conceptually, the nature of qualitative research, globalisation and its implications for the research landscape, text‐data as a source for international research and equivalence issues in international qualitative research are discussed. The methodology section applies these concepts and analysis challenges to a real‐world example using N*Vivo software.

A 14‐step analytic design is developed, introducing procedures of data analysis and interpretation which help to formalise qualitative research of textual data.

The use of software programs (e.g. N*Vivo) helps to substantiate the analysis and interpretation process of textual data.

Step‐by‐step guidance on performing qualitative analysis of textual data and documenting findings.

The paper is valuable for researchers and practitioners looking for guidance in analysing and interpreting textual data from interviews. Specific support is given for N*Vivo software and its application.