In Defense of Bumbling
Throughout its history, consumer research has expressed nonuniform levels of affinity for alternative scientific styles. Fondness for the theory-oriented hypothetico-deductive approach has been understandably high, as there is much to recommend it. However, no approach is without shortcomings, and alternative approaches may offer unique avenues to knowledge development. The observations contained in this article are meant to illustrate some disadvantages of a monolithic view and, in so doing, foster tolerance of a research style that has been less favorably received.
Volume (Year): 38 (2012)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 981 - 987
|Contact details of provider:|| |
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jconrs:doi:10.1086/661230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.