Sophistication in Research in Marketing

By Donald R. Lehmann, Leigh McAlister, Richard Staelin. 2011

175 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f79ba8c87d535f6678878409a4a4f88e24eb829

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Partial Least Squares: The Better Approach to Structural Equation Modeling? (2012, unknown): “…2007a,b), there is little doubt that business practice can benefit from measurements and methods that provide actionable results (Albers, 2010), especially in light of the omnipresent discussion on the practical relevance of academic research (e.g., Lehmann et al., 2011; Reibstein et al., 2009).”
Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework (2013, background): “…2006) within the consumer research community has been actively supportive of research that addresses issues related to consumer welfare, including sustainability, and Lehmann et al. (2011) also strongly support the idea of starting new research by first identifying a meaningful problem to solve.”
Knowledge creation in consumer research: Multiple routes, multiple criteria (2012, unknown): “Framed in terms of contribution, the emphasis is placed on insightfulness (Lehmann et al., 2011), “relevance, reality, and durability” (Rozin, 2001; see also Lehmann et al., 2011), and novelty, Fig.”
The evolution of service innovation research: a critical review and synthesis (2014, background): “…the charge leveled by senior marketing scholars that the top marketing journals tend to emphasize incremental tests of theories rather than the development of new ideas (Lehmann & McAlister, 2011; MacInnis, 2011), and they might regard service innovation research as a still-emerging research field.”
Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay (2014, background): “Reviewer bias against single-item measures has been identified as an obstacle to marketing journals accepting groundbreaking and interesting research (Lehmann et al. 2011).”