Search results

Michael Holquist (1990), one of the commentators on Mikhail Bakhtin’s monumental work, stated flatly that “human existence is dialogue,” and Ivana Markova (2003) declared that “dialogism is the ontology of humanity.” Bakhtin (1985;1986) himself said that such dialogues are conducted by using “speech genres.” From another angle Kenneth Burke asked, “What is involved when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it?” and claimed – and showed – that this question can be best answered by using what he called the “grammar of motives,” which consisted of a hexad of terms: act, attitude, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. In this chapter, I examine, by using various examples, how the Burkean grammar is used in the construction of one speech genre or the other to achieve rhetorically effective dialogic communication.

This rejoinder aims to critique some of the perspectives in Chen’s (2018) study on hospitality and host–guest paradigm in China.

In this preliminary probe into Chen’s study, critical analysis is performed on Chen’s approaches, whereas document analysis is applied to the relevant ancient Chinese writings. Translations are the author’s own unless indicated otherwise.

Chen’s views are problematic and supported by patchy evidence. “Hierarchy principle” and “host-centric foundation” do not hold up. In a series of asymmetrical comparisons, Chen goes a bit too far in arguing for uniqueness.

This rejoinder presents valid critiques of Chen’s study, thus directing future research in the right direction. It is of some significance to clarify Chen’s misrepresentations and offer a truer and fuller account of Chinese hospitality, given the difficulty for international scholars to validate Chen’s views because of language barrier and cultural unfamiliarity.

Human agents are constantly using “symbols,” according to G. H. Mead, or “signs,” as C. S. Peirce called them, to engage in what Mikhail Bakhtin has called “dialogues” with each other or with the environment. Such vehicles of communication are not freestanding ones but are drawn from specific and demarcated discursive formations. So drawn, these vehicles are then put to use, as Kenneth Burke has shown in his dramatistic perspective on human social life, as agencies used by human agents to construct acts, in defined situations or scenes – that is social situations and physical locations – to display given attitudes, in order to fulfill one purpose or another. Every human move that an individual makes has these Burkean features. Such moves are used to engage in either convivial dramas or confrontational ones.

This paper proposes a rejoinder to the O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy rejoinder to “Service dominant logic: a necessary step”, the commentary on their previous criticism of service‐dominant logic.

This paper is a critical analysis of O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy's comments.

The paper finds that O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy's comments are, according to their own admission, contrived, without regard to or familiarity with the body of work they criticise. The work they disparage includes not only its own but, by implication, that contributed by a large and growing number of scholars worldwide who find service‐dominant logic a useful, informed and informing orientation to the market and marketing.

Scholars are encouraged to continue to collaborate and contribute to the development and advancement of service‐dominant logic as an ongoing, open‐source endeavour.

This paper suggests that, whereas serious debate and dialogue about service‐dominant logic, including that which is critical, are encouraged and are essential to meaningful advancement, it is probably best to disregard the less useful criticism contained in O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy's rejoinder, and move on to more serious work.

Many of the survey design issues raised by Tung (2000) are revisited in the context of Guilding and Kirman's (1998) study. While several practical issues are raised, underlying this rejoinder is the message that when conducting questionnaire survey research, issues can arise that require the researcher to exercise a degree of subjective judgement. While the researcher should always attempt to observe the types of practice noted by Tung, the application of these practices can be compromised when one turns to the reality of operationalisalion in the context of a particular research question(s) and a particular sample.

In this rejoinder, I should like to emphasise, once more, that my original article was intended as a statistical inquiry into the Saudi money demand relationship. As such, its main purpose was to explore whether foreign interest and currency exchange rates exert significant (statistically non‐zero) effects on domestic money holdings in Saudi Arabia. As the results in my Reply show, the use of non‐oil GDP that was suggested by Professor Fadil did not alter my original finding that these external factors do significantly affect the Saudi money demand.

The purpose of this paper is to present a rejoinder. The rejoinder is written in response to the commentaries provided by Saeed Samiee and Jean‐Claude Usunier on the authors’ original research piece: “‘What? I thought Samsung was Japanese’: accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters”.

The rejoinder is organized into three separate sections. The first section identifies areas of agreement between the authors, and Samiee and Usunier. The second section responds directly to the empirical and conceptual criticisms levied by Samiee and Usunier and clarifies the authors’ contribution. The rejoinder concludes by identifying areas of future research that may help further advance the field.

In addition to responding directly to the criticism of the original study, perhaps more importantly, the authors note several areas of common ground. First, there is agreement that future country‐of‐origin (COO) research designs must be careful to not artificially expose subjects to country cues that the consumer otherwise may not have considered. Second, in a globalizing world, brand origin perception appears to be more important than “made in” labels.

The authors do not consider the COO field outdated or irrelevant, but rather that it is a vibrant field of considerable interest to both practitioners and researchers. There is much still to be learned, and the authors hope the original research study and the ensuing debate have sparked fresh ideas and will lead to a continued effort in this interesting research field.

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.