网范文：“Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals” 在科学出版物方面，英语论文范文，我写的对于实证探讨导致了以下的结论。这篇社会范文讲述了探讨过程，有三个标准是有用的，探讨关于识别结果是否重要，对于复制、有效性和实用性等方面。惊讶的是,在某些情况下都适用。根据这些标准,造成重要的发现，学术探讨营销似乎比较罕见。在很大程度上,这种罕见是由于奖励制度,是建立在主观的同行评审。而不是使用其作为一个筛选过程。
探讨人员、期刊、商学院、资助机构和专业组织都能有助于改善过程。例如,探讨人员应该做的是通过定向探讨论文为准则。期刊应该邀请论文为准则。商学院管理员应该奖励探讨人员做出的发现。下面的范文进行详述。
Abstract
My review of empirical research on scientific publication led to the following conclusions. Three criteria are useful for identifying whether findings are important: replication, validity, and usefulness. A fourth criterion, surprise, applies in some situations. Based on these criteria, important findings resulting from academic research in marketing seem to be rare. To a large extent, this rarity is due to a reward system that is built around subjective peer review. Rather than using peer review as a secret screening process, using an open process likely will improve s and inform readers. Researchers, journals, business schools, funding agencies, and professional organizations can all contribute to improving the process. For example, researchers should do directed research on s that contribute to principles. Journals should invite s that contribute to principles. Business school administrators should reward researchers who make important findings. Funding agencies should base decisions on researchers' prior success in making important findings, and professional organizations should maintain web sites that describe what is known about principles and what research is needed on principles.
Introduction
A colleague told me that when his son asked him what he did, he answered, “I am a management scientist.” “What do scientists do?” his son asked. “They discover things,” my colleague said. “What have you discovered?” The rest of the conversation, my colleague said, was short. Similarly, when I have raised this issue about important discoveries in marketing with my colleagues, the initial reaction is that I am making a small joke. When I persist, it has been difficult to get a long answer. When I provide a list of leading marketing scientists and ask colleagues to tell me about important findings by each of these scholars, again the answers have been short. Progress of science in marketing concerns some scholars. Anderson (1994) criticizes the ability of marketing science to deliver solutions to business problems.
Bloom (1987), who reviewed the quality of research on marketing, the AMA Task Force on Marketing (1988), and Wells (1993), who assessed consumer research, also concluded that progress is slow. Similar concerns are expressed in other areas of management science; Boland et al. (2017) lists 12 sources lamenting the problem. When important discoveries are made in chemistry, psychology, medicine, or engineering, mass media often on them. Inasmuch as marketing is a central part of our lives, one would expect the mass media to show some interest in findings related to marketing. In October 2017, I conducted a computer search of the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal from 1980 to 2017, using the terms “marketing and academic.” I found no studies ing on findings by marketing professors. With a more careful search, one would be likely to find something, but the point is that it is not easy. Marketing practitioners and researchers looking for useful findings are faced with a large number of academic s. Although these s have passed through a rigorous screening process, few seem to contain important findings. Most conclusions in this come from my review of empirical research on scientific publication.
The review incorporates earlier literature reviews, such as a meta-analysis on peer review that found 68 empirical s (Armstrong 1997). I generalize from these studies, most of which are from outside the field of marketing, and I indicate if my conclusions are not based on empirical evidence. First I provide suggestions on how to decide whether a finding is important. Given the apparent scarcity of important findings, I consider barriers to discovery and communication. Proposals are then made to increase the number of important s in marketing science.
What Can Professional Organizations Do?
Professional organizations, as independent third parties, could help to encourage research and to communicate findings. For example, they might try to influence the reward system by rating the effectiveness of researchers and schools in producing important findings. Such ratings might attract much interest. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1992), for example, rated faculty members, departments and business schools for research impact (Table 4) and their ratings achieved high visibility, even before being published. Schools that did well according to these criteria helped to publicize the study. Professional organizations could rate schools on the basis of important findings. Professional organizations could communicate important findings so that they would be easily available to practitioners and researchers.
They could summarize the findings as principles and post them on a web site. Rossiter (2017) suggests that the findings be organized as concepts, structural frameworks, strategic principles, and research principles. The web site should allow for open peer review so that the principles could be challenged, updated, and refined. I have been developing such a site for forecasting principles (forecastingprinciples). The goal is to influence the ways that academics do research and the ways that practitioners 25 forecast. The site gets a reasonable number of visits; as of 2017, there were 1,200 visits per week and the rate was growing. I suspect that this rate represents more attention than is paid to the leading journals in the field, the International Journal of Forecasting and the Journal of Forecasting.
Conclusions
The number of important findings in marketing seems modest. Few researchers produce findings that meet the criteria of being replicated, valid, and useful. Of those that do, few have surprising findings. Peer review poses a barrier to generating, publishing, and applying important findings, especially when the findings are also surprising. Given technological changes, it is no longer necessary to use peer review to censor work. Instead, peer review can be used to improve research s and to provide useful signals to readers.()
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
，英语毕业论文 |
