IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v34y2016i5p466-474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A scientific realism perspective on scientific progress in marketing: An analysis of theory testing in marketing's major journals

Author

Listed:
  • Kenworthy, Thomas P.
  • Sparks, John R.

Abstract

Marketing's scientific progress depends on, among other things, the development and testing of theories that explain and predict marketing phenomena. Ultimately, theory testing should advance the discipline toward broader theories with greater explanatory and predictive power. Using the inductive-realist model (Hunt, 2012) as a framework for scientific progress, this study analyzes three decades of theory testing published in five major marketing journals. The study examines issues of the amount of theory testing, the extent to which theories are tested multiple times, and the disciplinary origins of the theories that are tested. The results show that marketing has been remarkably productive in the development and testing of theories; however, that progress is tempered by the relatively few theories that are tested multiple times.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenworthy, Thomas P. & Sparks, John R., 2016. "A scientific realism perspective on scientific progress in marketing: An analysis of theory testing in marketing's major journals," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 466-474.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:34:y:2016:i:5:p:466-474
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237316300676
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shelby D. Hunt, 2012. "Explaining empirically successful marketing theories: the inductive realist model, approximate truth, and market orientation," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(1), pages 5-18, March.
    2. Kenworthy, Thomas P. & Verbeke, Alain, 2015. "The future of strategic management research: Assessing the quality of theory borrowing," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 179-190.
    3. Easley, Richard W. & Madden, Charles S. & Gray, Van, 2013. "A tale of two cultures: Revisiting journal editors' views of replication research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1457-1459.
    4. Brown, James R. & Dant, Rajiv P., 2009. "The Theoretical Domains of Retailing Research: A Retrospective," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 113-128.
    5. Hunter, John E, 2001. "The Desperate Need for Replications," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 149-158, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas P. Kenworthy & W. Edward McMullan, 2018. "In consideration of entrepreneurship theory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 767-783, May.
    2. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    2. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    3. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Satish Nambisan & Yadong Luo, 2021. "Toward a loose coupling view of digital globalization," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(8), pages 1646-1663, October.
    5. Mou, Shandong & Robb, David J. & DeHoratius, Nicole, 2018. "Retail store operations: Literature review and research directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 399-422.
    6. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Rajan Varadarajan, 2017. "Research on market orientation: Some lessons shared and issues discussed in a doctoral seminar," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 7(1), pages 26-35, June.
    8. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    9. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    10. Shelby Hunt, 2015. "Explicating the inductive realist model of theory generation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 20-27, June.
    11. Trafimow, David & Hyman, Michael R. & Kostyk, Alena, 2020. "The (im)precision of scholarly consumer behavior research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 93-101.
    12. Auh, Seigyoung & Johnson, Michael D., 2005. "Compatibility effects in evaluations of satisfaction and loyalty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-57, February.
    13. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2010. "Replications of forecasting research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-8, January.
    14. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2007. "Viewpoint: Replication in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 715-733, August.
    15. Swoboda, Bernhard & Berg, Bettina & Schramm-Klein, Hanna & Foscht, Thomas, 2013. "The importance of retail brand equity and store accessibility for store loyalty in local competition," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-262.
    16. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    17. Valérie Orozco & Christophe Bontemps & Élise Maigné & Virginie Piguet & Annie Hofstetter & Anne Marie Lacroix & Fabrice Levert & Jean-Marc Rousselle, 2017. "How to make a pie? Reproducible Research for Empirical Economics & Econometrics," Post-Print hal-01939942, HAL.
    18. Herman Aguinis & Kelly P. Gabriel, 2022. "International business studies: Are we really so uniquely complex?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(9), pages 2023-2036, December.
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    20. Luis Alfonso Dau & Grazia D. Santangelo & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2022. "Replication studies in international business," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(2), pages 215-230, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:34:y:2016:i:5:p:466-474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.