Search results

The purpose of this paper is to ease the methodological application of critical realist multilevel research in business marketing. Although there has been plenty of theoretical contributions in this field, it is not always clear how critical realism can be best applied in business marketing settings. Accordingly, this paper addresses this gap in literature. Also, this paper addresses the calls for a multilevel conceptualization for resilience, based on the critical realist laminated systems.

This is a conceptual paper, which uses pre-existing literature to develop a critical realist methodological approach for the purposes of multilevel business marketing research. The contribution is based on literature by combining pre-existing ideas in a new way in the context of business marketing.

This paper makes a methodological contribution by introducing the critical realist “laminated systems” to business marketing as a multilevel research approach. Furthermore, the authors conceptualize a specific laminated model, the Laminated Interactional Model (LIM), that is designed for the purpose of business marketing research. The LIM is a methodological tool that conceptualizes business marketing based on six levels of analysis, easing the methodological application of critical realism in business marketing settings. In addition, to provide an example, the authors apply the LIM to the literature on resilience, providing a multilevel conceptualization. This is a timely contribution, as resilience has emerged as a central concept addressing interorganizational survival during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper makes three main contributions to business marketing. First, this paper provides a methodological contribution by introducing the critical realist notion of “laminated systems” to business marketing. Second, this paper conceptualizes a specific laminated model for business marketing, namely, the LIM. Third, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper will apply critical realism and the LIM to the notion of resilience, addressing the calls for multilevel conceptualizations.

This paper aims to explore the interplay between methods and methodologies in the field of international relations (IR) over the 100 years of its lifetime reflecting on the relationship between the rise of new research methods and the rise of new methodologies.

This paper looks in retrospect into the field’s great debates using a historiography approach. It maps chronologically the interplay of methods and methodology throughout the stages of the development of the study of IR.

This paper argues that inspite of narratives of triumph being common in the field, the coexistence of competing research methods and methodologies is the defining feature of the field. All theories, all methods and all methodologies have undergone a process of criticism, self-criticism and change. New methodologies have not necessarily accompanied the rise of new research methods in the field.

Drawing a map of the field’s methodologies and methods reveals necessarily its dynamism and its plurality. An honest map of the field is one that highlights not only theoretical differences but also ontological, epistemological and methodological differences embedded in the field’s debates.

The purpose of this conceptual‐theoretical review article is to examine two claims made by critical management studies (CMS): that CMS is emancipatory and that it has critical theory (CT) as its origin and prime theoretical base.

Two theories are contrasted: CT and CMS. The paper analyses one of CMS' newest key publications: the Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies in great detail focusing on epidemiology and philosophy.

The main finding is that CMS is a critical representation of mainstream MS. CT focuses on emancipation while CMS provides a system‐conforming interpretation of traditional MS that rarely presents alternatives to mainstream MS.

The key implication is that CMS assists mainstream MS as a corrective but, in general, does not enhance emancipation.

The paper assists researchers in the field of management studies (MS) and its “critical” offspring of CMS in understanding the role CMS plays for traditional MS.

It makes scholars aware that research conducted from within CMS provides system‐conforming solution to issues such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental issues. CMS scholarship is not a critical evaluation of, for example, CSR and environmental issues directed towards emancipation from present structures of managerial domination.

The value of the paper is threefold: for the first time, CMS has been measured against its own claims; the article provides clarity on three issues: MS, CMS and CT; and it assists research in the area of CMS and CT because it shows that the former is about improving mainstream MS while the latter is about emancipation.

Recent research suggests that the interest in process-based single-case studies is increasing in business-to-business (B2B) marketing. This paper aims to discuss research validity issues and dilemmas encountered by process-based single-case researchers in B2B marketing.

This is a methodology paper that builds on an integration of experiences, ideas and literature.

In the paper, three dilemmas are suggested that researchers need to deal with in process-based single-case research. These relate to the casing process: crafting the case, communicating the case and describing the process of the study. Furthermore, process validation is suggested as a research quality concept concerned with how these dilemmas are handled.

Based on the notion of process validation, the authors provide suggestions for how casing, as a process-based single-case approach, can be conveyed and advanced in its own right.

This study can be used to convey insights that can help new and experienced researchers in conducting single-case studies in B2B.

Coping with issues of research quality in B2B marketing is of relevance to researchers dealing with process-based single-case research and process validation issues, as well as to journal reviewers evaluating the qualities of process-based single-case research.