چه چیزی یک مطالعه موردی را خوب می سازد؟بررسی مثبت از تحقیقات موردی کیفی در مدیریت بازاریابی صنعتی منتشر شده در 1971-2006
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|22894||2010||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6900 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 56-63
Business-to-business marketing research has a long tradition of using qualitative case studies. Industrial Marketing Management (IMM) has actively encouraged the use of case methods, resulting in many important theoretical advances in the field. However, debate still rages over what constitutes “good case research”. This article addresses this issue from a positivist standpoint. We examine the how authors address issues of quality in the 105 qualitative case studies published in IMM between 1971 and 2006. Four periods were identified: 1971–1979, 1980–1989, 1990–1999, and 2000–2006. Findings demonstrate that, from a positivist viewpoint, there has been a steady improvement in how authors addressed issues of research quality in published qualitative case studies. Suggestions for changes in data presentation, reviewer expectations, the IMM reviewer feedback form, and the use of web-based appendices containing data pertinent to reader judgments of research quality are suggested.
Industrial marketing research is characterized by the use of qualitative case studies to build theory2 (Dubois and Araujo, 2004, Dubois and Araujo, 2007, Easton, 2000 and Harrison and Easton, 2004). The value of case studies to business marketing theory is recognized in editorial missions of all three-specialist business-to-business (B2B) marketing journals (IMM, Journal of BusinessandIndustrial Marketing, and Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing). Researchers have employed case studies partly because the inherent flexibility of the method suits the study of the complex, evolving relationships and interactions in industrial markets ( Dubois & Araujo, 2004). However, the nature of case quality and its associated practices varies widely (Dubois and Araujo, 2004, Easton, 2000 and Harrison and Easton, 2004). Several authors have noted the need for greater sensitivity to quality criteria in business marketing case research to avoid inappropriate practices (Hillebrand, Kok, & Biemans, 2001), including the preferencing of one type of design (multiple cases) over rich, single cases (Dubois & Araujo, 2007). As well, others, desiring greater pluralism in method, have called for greater sensitivity to the epistemological issues underpinning quality criteria in qualitative case research (Easton, 2000 and Harrison and Easton, 2004). We respond to these calls (and that of the special issue) by conducting a longitudinal examination of how authors have addressed research quality in Industrial Marketing Management. Besides space considerations, we chose IMM because the journal is recognized as the leading journal in industrial marketing and is a top ten journal by influence within marketing over a thirty-year period (Baumgartner & Pieters, 2003). As such, IMM was judged to provide preeminent examples of case research within the sub-discipline of B2B marketing. We focus on qualitative case studies published between 1971 and 2006. Although sensitive to other traditions such as realism (Easton, 2000), interpretivism (Beverland, 2005) and postmodernism (Rinallo & Golfetto, 2006), we focus on case quality from the dominant positivist viewpoint—a summary of case quality criteria from this standpoint is presented in Table 1
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Our findings suggest that (perhaps fittingly) from a positivist viewpoint there has been a steady improvement in how authors address research quality in qualitative cases. Although, it is unlikely that one dominant design will ever emerge, authors are attempting (within ever tighter page limits) to provide enough information for readers to judge quality, without diminishing the quality of the story. As well, the lack of one dominant design does not represent a weakness, but may be representative of a maturing of a sub-discipline open to alternate approaches. That said, authors operating within a positivist paradigm should continue to provide more information to readers regarding method, research design, and quality (especially given that IMM is a leading marketing publication for case research). As well as giving explicit attention to these issues, researchers operating within a positivist tradition should be sensitive to how quality is demonstrated in writing up. Specifically, readers need to get some first hand access to raw data, need to see triangulation being used, and negative case examples being explained. Our paper also has limits and implications for future research. In regards to limitations, our findings are representative of B2B case research in one journal (IMM). Therefore, these results may not be representative of the field as a whole, and future research should examine case study practice across the various publication outlets for B2B research. Second, our findings are limited to an examination of materials published in final articles. We are well aware as authors that material necessary to convince reviewers and editors of the quality of a case research may be removed during the review process due to concerns about article length. However, if this does occur, we would caution against such a practice as such information is necessary for readers to make independent judgments of research quality. Furthermore, by taking a positivist stance we are aware that we may have judged articles against standards inconsistent with the original author(s) stance or intent, use standards that are rejected by interpretivists or realists. In regards to future research, we suggest two further avenues. First, is our interpretation reliable? Although we have provided as much information as possible to allow readers to make an informed judgment about our conclusions we recognize that others may view the practices used (and the extent of use) differently. Thus we encourage other authors to examine our database and offer an alternative view. Second, building on the first point, it would be interesting to check the external validity of the cases carried out. This could be done using citation databases and identifying whether empirical testing of case findings has been done, or whether bodies of work have effectively replicated findings in the same or different settings with similar or different methods. Third, we suggest authors seek to publish edited anthologies of cases in business marketing. Such a practice is common in management where authors provide new researchers or doctoral students with examples of exemplary research and additional commentary on the positives and negatives of each article. Given the number of cases published in business marketing, a similar approach would be useful in beginning a conversation about research quality in business marketing cases (following Brown's (2005) review of writing styles in marketing, or Frost and Stablein's (1992) review of management research practice). Finally, the findings have a number of implications for reviewers and for the IMM review process. In regards to issues of quality, reviewers need to have an understanding of different case research paradigms and the implications of each for how authors address research quality. In this regard the review form for IMM should be adjusted to allow reviewers to give ratings on these issues for (qualitative) case research (currently this feedback is only given to quantitative articles). As well, this requires reviewers to hold authors to account in one sense but also to be more sensitive to different approaches. For example, more positivistic-minded reviewers may prefer multiple case studies to a rich single case. However, multiple case studies are not the gold standard of case research and give rise to just as many problems (if not more) than rich single cases (Dubois and Araujo, 2004 and Dubois and Araujo, 2007). And, editors and reviewers need to be sensitive to issues of article length (subject to concerns over contribution-length ratio). It is possible that details pertinent to reader assessments of research quality were cut from papers in order to reduce page space. Perhaps a website containing more appendices for qualitative case-based articles could be provided to address this issue.