Click here to download

Journal Title: MERCATI & COMPETITIVITÀ 
Author/s: Ksenia Silchenko 
Year:  2018 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  19 Pg. 27-45 FullText PDF:  480 KB
DOI:  10.3280/MC2018-004003
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


In the exponential growth of scientific publication output and the growing maturity of the marketing discipline, doing literature and research reviews has become more than just a research convention, but rather a proper form of research. However, despite increasing attention and the number of published guides and handbooks, review methodologies tend to evolve in the direction of statistical meta-analyses, thus not only neglecting the knowledge-advancing potential of qualitative work, but also contributing to the widening of the qualitative-quantitative divide. By bringing attention to qualitative review methodologies and introducing a categorization of "meta" approaches informed by the insights from the sociology of knowledge, this critical review paper suggests that a stronger focus on text-based methods applied to the analysis of (marketing) literature can enrich (marketing) research, both in terms of methodologies and new knowledge generation.
Keywords: Review methodologies, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, discourse analysis, sociology of knowledge, qualitative-quantitative divide.

  1. Andriopoulos C., & Slater S. (2013). Exploring the landscape of qualitative research in international marketing. International Marketing Review, 30(4): 384-412., 10.1108/IMR-03-2012-0061DOI: 10.1108/IMR-03-2012-0061
  2. Barnett-Page E., & Thomas J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1): 59., 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
  3. Berger P.L., & Luckmann T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
  4. Borman G.D., & Grigg J.A. (2009). Visual and narrative interpretation. In: Cooper H.M., Hedges L.V., & Valentine J. C. (Eds.). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 497-519). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  5. Bornmann L., & Mutz R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11): 2215-2222.
  6. Brannan M.J., Fleetwood S., O’Mahoney J., & Vincent S. (2017). Critical Essay: Meta-analysis: A critical realist critique and alternative. Human Relations, 70(1): 11-39., 10.1177/0018726716674063DOI: 10.1177/0018726716674063
  7. Brown S. (1999). Marketing and literature: The anxiety of academic influence. Journal of Marketing, 63(1): 1-15., 10.2307/1251997DOI: 10.2307/1251997
  8. Brown S., & Schau H.J. (2008). Writing Russell Belk: Excess all areas. Marketing Theory, 8(2): 143-165., 10.1177/1470593108089202.DOI: 10.1177/1470593108089202.
  9. Brownlie D., & Saren M. (1997). Beyond the one-dimensional marketing manager: The discourse of theory, practice and relevance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(2): 147-161., 10.1016/S0167-8116(96)00036-5DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8116(96)00036-5
  10. Collins H.M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1): 265-285.
  11. Cooper H.M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1): 104-126., 10.1007/BF03177550DOI: 10.1007/BF03177550
  12. Cooper H.M., & Hedges L.V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In: Cooper H.M., Hedges L.V., & Valentine J. C. (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd., pp. 3-16). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  13. Cooper H.M., Hedges L.V., & Valentine J.C. (Eds.) (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  14. Davis M.S. (1971). That’s interesting!: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2): 309-344., 10.1177/004839317100100211DOI: 10.1177/004839317100100211
  15. Denyer D., & Tranfield D. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2): 213-227., 10.1108/00251740610650201DOI: 10.1108/00251740610650201
  16. Dixon-Woods M., Cavers D., Agarwal S., Annandale E., Arthur A., Harvey J., Sutton A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1): 35., 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
  17. Eisend M. (2015). Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A meta-meta-analysis of effect sizes in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 79(3): 23-40.
  18. Eteokleous P.P., Leonidou L.C., & Katsikeas C. S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in international marketing: Review, assessment, and future research. International Marketing Review, 33(4): 580-624., 10.1108/IMR-04-2014-0120DOI: 10.1108/IMR-04-2014-0120
  19. Fairclough N. (2003). Analysing discourse. London: Routledge.
  20. Fairclough N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  21. Fischer E., & Otnes C.C. (2006). Breaking new ground: Developing grounded theories in marketing and consumer behavior. In: Belk R.W. (Ed.). Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing (pp. 19-30). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing., 10.4337/9781847204127.00008DOI: 10.4337/9781847204127.00008
  22. Foucault M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
  23. Foucault M. (2001). Truth and power. In: Faubion J.D. (Ed.). Power: Essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. Volume three. (pp. 111-153). New York: New Press.
  24. Galvagno M. (2017). Bibliometric literature review: An opportunity for marketing scholars. Mercati & Competitività, 4: 7-15., 10.3280/MC2017-004001DOI: 10.3280/MC2017-004001
  25. Galvagno M., & Dalli D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24(6): 643-683., 10.1108/MSQ-09-2013-0187DOI: 10.1108/MSQ-09-2013-0187
  26. Glaser B.G., & Strauss A. L. (2009). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswik: Transaction Publishers.
  27. Hackley C. (2001). Looking at me, looking at you: Qualitative research and the politics of knowledge representations in advertising and academia. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(1): 42-51., 10.1108/13522750110364569.DOI: 10.1108/13522750110364569.
  28. Hackley C. (2003). “we are all customers now...” Rhetorical strategy and ideological control in marketing management texts. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5): 1325-1352., 10.1111/1467-6486.00382DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00382
  29. Hanson D., & Grimmer M. (2007). The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing journals, 1993-2002. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2): 58-70., 10.1108/03090560710718111DOI: 10.1108/03090560710718111
  30. Hirschman E.C. (1993). Ideology in consumer research, 1980 and 1990: A Marxist and Feminist critique. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4): 537-555., 10.1086/209321DOI: 10.1086/209321
  31. Hoffman, D.L., & Holbrook, M.B. (1993). The intellectual structure of consumer research: A bibliometric study of author cocitations in the first 15 years of the journal of consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4): 505-517., 10.1086/20931DOI: 10.1086/20931
  32. Hughner R.S., McDonagh P., Prothero A., Shultz C.J., & Stanton J. (2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(2-3): 94-110.
  33. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2017). “Call for papers for a special issue and thought leaders’ conference on generalizations in marketing: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Edited by Mark B. Houston and John Hulland”. — Available at: http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/JAMS+Generalizations+in+Marketing+CFP+Final.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1612857-p173668805.
  34. Kilbourne W.E., & Beckmann S. C. (1998). Review and critical assessment of research on marketing and the environment. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(6): 513-532., 10.1362/026725798784867716DOI: 10.1362/026725798784867716
  35. Krippendorff K. (1989). Content analysis. In: Barnouw E., Gerbner G., Schramm W., Worth T.L., & Gross L. (Eds.). International encyclopedia of communication (pp. 403-407). New York: Oxford University Press.
  36. Lacity M.C., & Janson M.A. (1994). Understanding qualitative data: A framework of text analysis methods. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2): 137-155., 10.1080/07421222.1994.11518043DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1994.11518043
  37. Larsen P.O., & von Ins M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3): 575-603.
  38. Leonidou L. C., & Katsikeas C. S. (2010). Integrative assessment of exporting research articles in business journals during the period 1960-2007. Journal of Business Research, 63(8): 879-887.
  39. Littell J.H., Corcoran J., & Pillai V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
  40. Marx W., & Bornmann L. (2016). Change of perspective: Bibliometrics from the point of view of cited references – a literature overview on approaches to the evaluation of cited references in bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 109(2): 1397-1415.
  41. McCarthy E.D. (1996). Knowledge as culture: The new sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
  42. McDonagh P., & Prothero A. (2014). Sustainability marketing research: Past, present and future. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(11-12): 1186-1219., 10.1080/0267257X.2014.943263DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2014.943263
  43. Mulkay M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London and New York: Routledge. Murray J.B., & Ozanne J.L. (2006). Rethinking the critical imagination. In: Belk R.W. (Ed.). Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 46-55). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing., 10.4337/9781847204127.00010DOI: 10.4337/9781847204127.00010
  44. Noblit G.W., & Hare R.D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.
  45. Ogawa R. T., & Malen B. (1991). Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literatures: Applying the exploratory case study method. Review of Educational Research, 61(3): 265-286., 10.3102/00346543061003265DOI: 10.3102/00346543061003265
  46. Orsingher C. (2016). Synthesizing research in marketing through meta-analysis. Mercati & Competitività, 2: 7-10., 10.3280/MC2016-002001DOI: 10.3280/MC2016-002001
  47. Paterson B.L., Thorne S.E., Canam C., & Jillings C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  48. Pawson R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: The promise of `realist synthesis’. Evaluation, 8(3): 340-358., 10.1177/135638902401462448DOI: 10.1177/135638902401462448
  49. Point S., Fendt J., & Jonsen K. (2017). Qualitative inquiry in management: Methodological dilemmas and concerns in meta-analysis. European Management Review, 14(2): 185-204.
  50. Sandelowski M., Docherty S., & Emden C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(4): 365-371.
  51. Skålén P., Fougère M., & Fellesson M. (2008). Marketing discourse: A critical perspective. London: Routledge.
  52. Stern B.B. (1990). Literary criticism and the history of marketing thought: A new perspective on “reading” marketing theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(4): 329-336., 10.1007/BF02723918DOI: 10.1007/BF02723918
  53. Suchman M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610., 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331
  54. Suri H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2): 63-75., 10.3316/QRJ1102063DOI: 10.3316/QRJ1102063
  55. Suri H., & Clarke D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1): 395-430., 10.3102/0034654308326349DOI: 10.3102/0034654308326349
  56. Thomas J., & Harden A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1): 45., 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  57. Thompson C.J. (1993). Modern truth and postmodern incredulity: A hermeneutic deconstruction of the metanarrative of “scientific truth” in marketing research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(3): 325-338., 10.1016/0167-8116(93)90014-PDOI: 10.1016/0167-8116(93)90014-P
  58. Tranfield D., Denyer D., & Smart P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3): 207-222., 10.1111/1467-8551.00375DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375
  59. Weed M. (2008). A potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: Issues in the development of “meta-interpretation”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(1): 13-28., 10.1080/13645570701401222DOI: 10.1080/13645570701401222

Ksenia Silchenko, in "MERCATI & COMPETITIVITÀ" 4/2018, pp. 27-45, DOI:10.3280/MC2018-004003

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content