a guest article by Rebekah Russell-Bennett and Steve Baron
The question of ‘what makes a theoretical contribution’ is discussed around water coolers, tea rooms, at conferences and in journal articles. It is a question that worries research students and causes seasoned scholars to stop and ponder. As new editors of the Journal of Services Marketing, it is also a question that we have needed to consider when setting our editorial direction and strategy. In our editorials this year we will deal with the topic of publishing in the journal; what we want and what we don’t.
One of the major reasons a manuscript is desk-rejected by us is lack of a clear theoretical contribution, and a primary factor underpinning this is the assumption that a new context equals a new contribution. The natural extension of this assumption is around the contribution of a replication study. So, in this article, we will first deal with the nature of theoretical contribution, discuss context, and finally discuss replications.
What is a theoretical contribution in the services marketing field?
A theory needs to contain four elements; factors, relationships between the factors, explanation of the underlying mechanisms of the relationships, and the contextual boundaries (range of the theory) (Whetton 1989). Thus a theoretical contribution needs to contain something new in at least one of these elements.
When does context matter?
Context refers to the external environment that is the setting for an event, occasion, idea or action (Oxford Dictionary, 2010). For services marketing research, context generally means a difference of the following types: demographic group (e.g. gender, age, income, country); service type (e.g. professional, personal); service channel (e.g. virtual, face-to-face); or industry (e.g. banking, automotive, hairdressing, education). One of the major failings of rejected papers is the lack of ability to explain to/convince the reader as to why the new context matters, and why new research is needed to test an existing theory/model/framework in this new context. Many authors simply state that “no prior research has been done in the [insert demographic/service type/service channel/industry context here] and this research addresses this gap”. One of the most memorable quotes that was said at an Academy of Management conference was “stating that a gap exists is the best of the worst reasons to do research”. Unless filling that gap is important, then the mere existence of a gap is not sufficient reason to undertake research.
So when, then, does context matter? For a new context to offer a theoretical contribution, there must be something different about the other three elements of theory compared to prior research. The context, say the banking industry, must fundamentally change either the factors that constitute the theory, or the relationships between those factors, or offer a different explanation of why those relationships occur. Simply taking an existing theory/model/framework, say Services Quality, collecting data in a new [insert context here] and finding that the factors, relationships and explanation are the same as the hundreds of prior studies means that the manuscript will get no further than the desk review. Recently, the importance of context for value co-creation has been highlighted by Chandler and Vargo (2011) who pose that context influences “how resources can be drawn upon for service” (Chandler and Vargo 2011, p40).
How are replications a theoretical contribution?
Scholars in marketing have long expressed concern about the lack of replication studies in the field with the rate falling between 1994 and 2007 (Evanschitzky, Baumgarth, Hubbard and Armstrong, 2007). So why are replications important? Successful replications provide reliability of results, while failures identify areas for future research, and, in particular, replications with extension help “generalize the findings beyond the original context” (Hubbard and Armstrong 1994 p236). So what is a replication, and how is it different to a replication with extension? Hubbard and Armstrong define it as “a duplication of a previously published empirical study that is concerned with assessing whether similar findings can be obtained upon repeating the study” (Hubbard and Armstrong 1994 p 236). A replication with extension is defined as “a duplication of a previously published empirical research project that serves to investigate the generalizability of earlier research findings ” (Hubbard and Armstrong 1994 p236).
The quandary for marketing scholars is the need to meet the editorial criteria of new/original/unique findings with the discipline need for replication. If a scholar does an exact replication of an original study and has the same findings – does this meet the criteria of newness? Only if there was need for the replication. For example, one could argue that, with the hundreds of studies that exist on the service quality and satisfaction relationship, there is no need to replicate this further. However, for a new relationship, a new scale or where the context may change the findings, then a replication would offer merit.
Conclusion
When thinking of publishing in the major service(s) journals, it is important to know the position of the editors on replication, and ensure that your article pushes the boundaries of the field rather than merely duplicating prior research.
For a full version of this article, visit the editorial for 2015 Volume 29 (3)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0106
Co-editors of Journal of Services Marketing (JSM)
Rebekah Russell-Bennett
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Steve Baron
University of Liverpool, UK
References
Brady, M.K., Voorhees. C.M., Cronin Jr, J.J. and Brian L. Bourdeau, (2006),”The good guys don’t always win: the effect of valence on service perceptions and consequences”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No, 2 pp. 83 – 91
Broderick, A.J. (1998),”Role theory, role management and service performance”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 348 – 361
Chandler, J.D. and Vargo, S.L (2011), “Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange” Marketing Theory, Vol.11. No. 1, pp.35-49
Evanschitzky, H. Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R. and Armstrong, S. (2007), “Replication research in marketing revisited: A note on a disturbing trend, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, No. 4, , pp. 411-415.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Relational benefits in service industries: the customer’s perspective” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 26. No. 2, pp101-114
Hubbard , R. and Armstrong J. S. (1994), “Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary”, International Journal of Research in Marketing Vol. 11 No. 3, 233-248.
Jeon, H and Choi, B. (2012), “The relationships between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No.5, pp 332-241
Jiang, Y. and Wang, C.L (2006), “The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction: the moderation of service contexts ”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20. No. 4, pp.211-218
Oxford University Press, (2010), Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford Univesity Press, London
Patterson, P. and Smith. T. (2001),”Relationship benefits in service industries: a replication in a Southeast Asian context”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15. No. 6, pp. 425 – 443
Whetton, D. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14. No. 4, pp 490-495
