David W. Stewart

Stewart, David W.

eScholarship - University of California

The role of method: some parting thoughts from a departing editor

Springer - Publisher Connector

EDITORIAL
The role of method: some parting thoughts from a departing
editor
David W. Stewart
Received: 19 June 2009 /Accepted: 19 June 2009 /Published online: 14 July 2009
# The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
This issue of JAMS marks the end of my term as editor,
though I will continue to haunt the journal in the next two
issues with papers I have accepted and over a longer time as
the papers I have published influence the field and impact
thinking and practice in marketing. It has been an
interesting and productive 3 years that I have immensely
enjoyed. I have had the rare privilege of editing two of
Marketing’s leading journals. I hope that I have done a
better job as a result of my prior experience. I will miss the
daily interaction with the extended set of colleagues that is
a part of the routine of an editor. I have appreciated the
contributions of authors and reviewers who have stimulated
my own thinking and introduced me to so many new ideas.
I have experienced the vicarious joy of authors whose
papers I have accepted for publication, but I am most proud
of the kind comments I have received from authors of
papers I have rejected.
In thinking about what words I might share in my parting
editorial statement I returned to a number of editorials I have
offered in past issues of this journal and the Journal of
Marketing. I have used up much of what I have to say about
the editorial process and I have already offered advice to
authors regarding the enterprise of discovery and publica-
tion. I have addressed the role of intellectual communities
and the place of journals in those communities (Stewart
1999) and the many factors that influence the quality of
research and the likelihood of publication (Stewart 2002,
2007, 2008). I have also addressed the more general
questions of what constitutes a “contribution” to the field
(Ladik and Stewart 2008) and the role of theory and
theoretical contributions in the marketing literature (Stewart
and Zinkhan 2006). I hope these comments will continue to
be useful to future generations of scholars.
Having already offered so many thoughts about the
intellectual and empirical contributions in marketing and
the publication process I had to think for a long time about
what I wished to say in parting as editor of JAMS. It then
occurred to me that the substance of a presentation I
recently made on the topic of multi-method research would
be a nice complement to my earlier commentaries. So, I
will close with some thoughts about method and its role in
discovery. I will punctuate my comments with the thoughts
of others who have been significant contributors to the
enterprise of science.
Method matters The famed physicist Werner Heisenberg
observed: “We have to remember that what we observe is
not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of
questioning.” Our mode of inquiry influences our results.
Our theories and assumptions, whether explicit or implicit,
influence where we look, how we look and how we
interpret what we see. In marketing, the view from the
perspective of a consumer is often very different from the
view of a marketing decision maker. What consumers tell us
in a long, open-ended interview is often different from what
we learn in a structured survey. Observation of behavior may
reveal things about a consumer that neither an interview or
survey reveals. Such differences do not suggest that any
method is better or worse than another. Rather, it suggests the
degree to which “findings” tend to reflect method. “Facts” and
“truths” are often bound by method. This is the reason it is so
dangerous to rely on a single, “preferred” method for
discovery. The use of multiple methods to investigate the
same phenomenon can create robust “facts” and “truths.”
D. W. Stewart (*)
The A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management,
University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, CA 92521, USA
e-mail: david.stewart@ucr.edu
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37:381–383
DOI 10.1007/s11747-009-0156-y
Common and complementary empirical findings that emerge
from different methods of study are far more compelling than
single method outcomes. Papers that use multiple methods
produce stronger results, larger contributions, and greater
impact.
The role of serendipity The prolific science fiction writer
Isaac Asimov stated that “The most exciting phrase to hear
in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny ...’.” What he
meant by this is that discovery is most profound when it
involves something unexpected rather than a finding of
something one is already looking for. A finding one is looking
for is already heavily method laden and usually involves a
high degree of structure in the investigative process. The
greater the structure, the less surprising the outcomes in most
cases. Surveys and experiments seldom produce really
surprising outcomes. This is why observation and qualitative
methods are important in marketing. These types of methods
do not produce definitive outcomes but they often suggest
interesting avenues for research. “That’s funny” often is the
spark of the most important research contributions. These
methods also help identify boundaries, limitations, and
complexities in phenomena. It is for this reason that I have
long encouragedmy students and colleagues to use qualitative
tools to inform their research and use them routinely as I
develop ideas for research projects. This said, the “Eureka!”
moment is still very important and rigorous test must also
accompany great discoveries.
Hypotheses do matter While serendipity can produce
exciting new insights, those insights will not be compelling
until they are transformed into hypotheses that can be
submitted to testing by an appropriate method. Thomas
Huxley noted that “The great tragedy of Science (is) the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
Hypotheses are important. They make testing possible,
and successful tests make findings more compelling.
Unfortunately, in marketing many hypotheses are tested
against the null hypothesis, that is, a test for a difference of
some type versus no difference. Such tests are useful but
not very interesting. Comparison of hypotheses to the null
is far less interesting than a competition among competing
hypotheses suggested by the literature. Marketing is such a
sufficiently mature discipline that there exist alternative
theories and explanations that can be pitted against one
another. Such contests are far more informative and
interesting than contests involving the null because they
can offer support to one of several competing theories and
thereby advance theory development.
Overwhelming substance with method P. L. Berger has
observed that “In science as in love, too much concentra-
tion on technique can often lead to impotence.” Some of the
least interesting papers I have reviewed have offered an
immaculate research design, sophisticated analysis, and
pristine results. The problem with these papers is that the
substance of the research was lost in the description of
the method and one was left wondering whether it was the
research design and methodology that produced the results.
Influential research focuses on the substantive contribution(s)
and avoids losing the substantive contribution in the
eloquence of methodology. The contribution of a paper is
not assessed by the methodology used but by the substantive
findings that are identified.
Persuasive communication matters An important and often
neglected element in the methodology of the enterprise of
discovery is communication. No matter how important the
phenomenon or problem, failure to communicate will bury
the idea. Sir Francis Darwin noted that “In science the
credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not the
man to whom the idea first occurs.” Communication is
often an afterthought and persuasive writing does not
characterize many of the papers that journals receive.
Communication is hard work but its principles are not
difficult: (1) clearly state what is new, (2) describe in detail
what was done and why in terms of method, and (3) be
clear about what the new finding means for theory, practice
or general knowledge in the field.
Explaining results A weak explanation of the meaning of
empirical findings is common in papers submitted for
publication. Sir William Bragg observed that “The important
thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to
discover new ways of thinking about them.” New facts are
important, but they become more compelling when placed in
the context of an answer to the question “What do the findings
mean?” The answer to this question should include a
discussion of the relationship of the new finding(s) to prior
research and to theory. It should also address whether method
is an influential factor in determining the empirical findings
and what the method of research implies about the findings.
A part of the meaning of any individual empirical result
is its relationship to prior research. In the words of Henri
Poincare: “Science is facts; just as houses are made of
stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is
not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily
science.” In describing the meaning and significance of
empirical results it is important to consider how the finding
itself and the methodology used fit a larger pattern: (1) How
is the house described?; (2) How would the methods
“stone” be described? and (3) What does the methods
“stone” contribute?
Tests of hypotheses are often method bound. Therefore it
is important to consider the relationship of method to
382 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37:381–383
hypothesis. Does a particular method bias findings in favor
of a positive finding with respect to a given hypothesis? If a
competition of theories is involved in a test of a hypothesis
does the method employed favor one theory over another?
Embrace ambiguity The outcomes of research often create
as many new questions as they answer. For this reason
ambiguity is a part of the discovery process. It is also what
makes the role of researcher interesting and ongoing. Those
seeking certainty probably need to find a less ambiguous
vocation. In the words of M. Catmill: “As an adolescent I
aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I
thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life—so I became
a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can
meet girls.”
Although ambiguity is inherent in research, method can
help resolve ambiguity. Use of different methods can
produce convergent and complementary results. Such
results increase confidence and make findings more
compelling. At the same time, it is important to acknowl-
edge, with honesty, the limitations imposed by method and
the ambiguity these limitations create.
Practical implications are secondary Marketing is an
applied discipline. We cannot lose sight of linking what
we do to practice. However, this does not mean that the
research enterprise should be driven by a search for answers
to immediate issues and practical answers to management
questions. Such answers are the domain of consultants and
applied marketing researchers. The best academic research
will find application in due course, but a narrow definition
of the research question, a dimension of the research
method, will assure a narrow research finding. The goal
of discovery is breakthrough insight. In the words of Marie
Curie:
“We must not forget that when radium was discovered
no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals.
The work was one of pure science. And this is a proof
that scientific work must not be considered from the
point of view of the direct usefulness of it. It must be
done for itself, for the beauty of science, and then
there is always the chance that a scientific discovery
may become like the radium a benefit for humanity.”
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which per-
mits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
References
Ladik, D. M., & Stewart, D. W. (2008). The contribution continuum.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 157–165.
Stewart, D. W. (1999). “Beginning again: change and renewal in
intellectual communities,” (Editorial Statement). Journal of
Marketing, 63, 2–5.
Stewart, D. W. (2002). “Getting published: reflections of an old
editor”, (Editorial Statement). Journal of Marketing, 66, 1–6.
Stewart, D. W. (2007). New and improved! A look at the future.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 1–4.
Stewart, D. W. (2008). Academic publishing in marketing: best and
worst practices. European Business Review, 20(5), 421–434.
Special Issue on Academic Journals and Academic Publishing.
Stewart, D. W., & Zinkhan, G. (2006). “Enhancing marketing theory
in academic research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 477–480.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37:381–383 383


Stewart, David

Loyola Marymount University

Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Marketing & Business Law Faculty Works College of Business Administration 2009 The role of method: Some parting thoughts from a departing editor David Stewart Loyola Marymount University, david.stewart@lmu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/mbl_fac  Part of the Marketing Commons Recommended Citation Stewart, D.W. The role of method: some parting thoughts from a departing editor. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 37, 381 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0156-y This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Business Administration at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marketing & Business Law Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu. EDITORIALThe role of method: some parting thoughts from a departingeditorDavid W. StewartReceived: 19 June 2009 /Accepted: 19 June 2009 /Published online: 14 July 2009# The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.comThis issue of JAMS marks the end of my term as editor,though I will continue to haunt the journal in the next twoissues with papers I have accepted and over a longer time asthe papers I have published influence the field and impactthinking and practice in marketing. It has been aninteresting and productive 3 years that I have immenselyenjoyed. I have had the rare privilege of editing two ofMarketing’s leading journals. I hope that I have done abetter job as a result of my prior experience. I will miss thedaily interaction with the extended set of colleagues that isa part of the routine of an editor. I have appreciated thecontributions of authors and reviewers who have stimulatedmy own thinking and introduced me to so many new ideas.I have experienced the vicarious joy of authors whosepapers I have accepted for publication, but I am most proudof the kind comments I have received from authors ofpapers I have rejected.In thinking about what words I might share in my partingeditorial statement I returned to a number of editorials I haveoffered in past issues of this journal and the Journal ofMarketing. I have used up much of what I have to say aboutthe editorial process and I have already offered advice toauthors regarding the enterprise of discovery and publica-tion. I have addressed the role of intellectual communitiesand the place of journals in those communities (Stewart1999) and the many factors that influence the quality ofresearch and the likelihood of publication (Stewart 2002,2007, 2008). I have also addressed the more generalquestions of what constitutes a “contribution” to the field(Ladik and Stewart 2008) and the role of theory andtheoretical contributions in the marketing literature (Stewartand Zinkhan 2006). I hope these comments will continue tobe useful to future generations of scholars.Having already offered so many thoughts about theintellectual and empirical contributions in marketing andthe publication process I had to think for a long time aboutwhat I wished to say in parting as editor of JAMS. It thenoccurred to me that the substance of a presentation Irecently made on the topic of multi-method research wouldbe a nice complement to my earlier commentaries. So, Iwill close with some thoughts about method and its role indiscovery. I will punctuate my comments with the thoughtsof others who have been significant contributors to theenterprise of science.Method matters The famed physicist Werner Heisenbergobserved: “We have to remember that what we observe isnot nature in itself but nature exposed to our method ofquestioning.” Our mode of inquiry influences our results.Our theories and assumptions, whether explicit or implicit,influence where we look, how we look and how weinterpret what we see. In marketing, the view from theperspective of a consumer is often very different from theview of a marketing decision maker. What consumers tell usin a long, open-ended interview is often different from whatwe learn in a structured survey. Observation of behavior mayreveal things about a consumer that neither an interview orsurvey reveals. Such differences do not suggest that anymethod is better or worse than another. Rather, it suggests thedegree to which “findings” tend to reflect method. “Facts” and“truths” are often bound by method. This is the reason it is sodangerous to rely on a single, “preferred” method fordiscovery. The use of multiple methods to investigate thesame phenomenon can create robust “facts” and “truths.”D. W. Stewart (*)The A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management,University of California, Riverside,Riverside, CA 92521, USAe-mail: david.stewart@ucr.eduJ. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37:381–383DOI 10.1007/s11747-009-0156-yCommon and complementary empirical findings that emergefrom different methods of study are far more compelling thansingle method outcomes. Papers that use multiple methodsproduce stronger results, larger contributions, and greaterimpact.The role of serendipity The prolific science fiction writerIsaac Asimov stated that “The most exciting phrase to hearin science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny ...’.” What hemeant by this is that discovery is most profound when itinvolves something unexpected rather than a finding ofsomething one is already looking for. A finding one is lookingfor is already heavily method laden and usually involves ahigh degree of structure in the investigative process. Thegreater the structure, the less surprising the outcomes in mostcases. Surveys and experiments seldom produce reallysurprising outcomes. This is why observation and qualitativemethods are important in marketing. These types of methodsdo not produce definitive outcomes but they often suggestinteresting avenues for research. “That’s funny” often is thespark of the most important research contributions. Thesemethods also help identify boundaries, limitations, andcomplexities in phenomena. It is for this reason that I havelong encouragedmy students and colleagues to use qualitativetools to inform their research and use them routinely as Idevelop ideas for research projects. This said, the “Eureka!”moment is still very important and rigorous test must alsoaccompany great discoveries.Hypotheses do matter While serendipity can produceexciting new insights, those insights will not be compellinguntil they are transformed into hypotheses that can besubmitted to testing by an appropriate method. ThomasHuxley noted that “The great tragedy of Science (is) theslaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”Hypotheses are important. They make testing possible,and successful tests make findings more compelling.Unfortunately, in marketing many hypotheses are testedagainst the null hypothesis, that is, a test for a difference ofsome type versus no difference. Such tests are useful butnot very interesting. Comparison of hypotheses to the nullis far less interesting than a competition among competinghypotheses suggested by the literature. Marketing is such asufficiently mature discipline that there exist alternativetheories and explanations that can be pitted against oneanother. Such contests are far more informative andinteresting than contests involving the null because theycan offer support to one of several competing theories andthereby advance theory development.Overwhelming substance with method P. L. Berger hasobserved that “In science as in love, too much concentra-tion on technique can often lead to impotence.” Some of theleast interesting papers I have reviewed have offered animmaculate research design, sophisticated analysis, andpristine results. The problem with these papers is that thesubstance of the research was lost in the description ofthe method and one was left wondering whether it was theresearch design and methodology that produced the results.Influential research focuses on the substantive contribution(s)and avoids losing the substantive contribution in theeloquence of methodology. The contribution of a paper isnot assessed by the methodology used but by the substantivefindings that are identified.Persuasive communication matters An important and oftenneglected element in the methodology of the enterprise ofdiscovery is communication. No matter how important thephenomenon or problem, failure to communicate will burythe idea. Sir Francis Darwin noted that “In science thecredit goes to the man who convinces the world, not theman to whom the idea first occurs.” Communication isoften an afterthought and persuasive writing does notcharacterize many of the papers that journals receive.Communication is hard work but its principles are notdifficult: (1) clearly state what is new, (2) describe in detailwhat was done and why in terms of method, and (3) beclear about what the new finding means for theory, practiceor general knowledge in the field.Explaining results A weak explanation of the meaning ofempirical findings is common in papers submitted forpublication. Sir William Bragg observed that “The importantthing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as todiscover new ways of thinking about them.” New facts areimportant, but they become more compelling when placed inthe context of an answer to the question “What do the findingsmean?” The answer to this question should include adiscussion of the relationship of the new finding(s) to priorresearch and to theory. It should also address whether methodis an influential factor in determining the empirical findingsand what the method of research implies about the findings.A part of the meaning of any individual empirical resultis its relationship to prior research. In the words of HenriPoincare: “Science is facts; just as houses are made ofstones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones isnot a house and a collection of facts is not necessarilyscience.” In describing the meaning and significance ofempirical results it is important to consider how the findingitself and the methodology used fit a larger pattern: (1) Howis the house described?; (2) How would the methods“stone” be described? and (3) What does the methods“stone” contribute?Tests of hypotheses are often method bound. Therefore itis important to consider the relationship of method to382 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37:381–383hypothesis. Does a particular method bias findings in favorof a positive finding with respect to a given hypothesis? If acompetition of theories is involved in a test of a hypothesisdoes the method employed favor one theory over another?Embrace ambiguity The outcomes of research often createas many new questions as they answer. For this reasonambiguity is a part of the discovery process. It is also whatmakes the role of researcher interesting and ongoing. Thoseseeking certainty probably need to find a less ambiguousvocation. In the words of M. Catmill: “As an adolescent Iaspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and Ithirsted for a meaningful vision of human life—so I becamea scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you canmeet girls.”Although ambiguity is inherent in research, method canhelp resolve ambiguity. Use of different methods canproduce convergent and complementary results. Suchresults increase confidence and make findings morecompelling. At the same time, it is important to acknowl-edge, with honesty, the limitations imposed by method andthe ambiguity these limitations create.Practical implications are secondary Marketing is anapplied discipline. We cannot lose sight of linking whatwe do to practice. However, this does not mean that theresearch enterprise should be driven by a search for answersto immediate issues and practical answers to managementquestions. Such answers are the domain of consultants andapplied marketing researchers. The best academic researchwill find application in due course, but a narrow definitionof the research question, a dimension of the researchmethod, will assure a narrow research finding. The goalof discovery is breakthrough insight. In the words of MarieCurie:“We must not forget that when radium was discoveredno one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals.The work was one of pure science. And this is a proofthat scientific work must not be considered from thepoint of view of the direct usefulness of it. It must bedone for itself, for the beauty of science, and thenthere is always the chance that a scientific discoverymay become like the radium a benefit for humanity.”Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which per-mits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.ReferencesLadik, D. M., & Stewart, D. W. (2008). The contribution continuum.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 157–165.Stewart, D. W. (1999). “Beginning again: change and renewal inintellectual communities,” (Editorial Statement). Journal ofMarketing, 63, 2–5.Stewart, D. W. (2002). “Getting published: reflections of an oldeditor”, (Editorial Statement). Journal of Marketing, 66, 1–6.Stewart, D. W. (2007). New and improved! A look at the future.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 1–4.Stewart, D. W. (2008). Academic publishing in marketing: best andworst practices. European Business Review, 20(5), 421–434.Special Issue on Academic Journals and Academic Publishing.Stewart, D. W., & Zinkhan, G. (2006). “Enhancing marketing theoryin academic research. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 34, 477–480.J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37:381–383 383

English