Diversity and Rigor Trends in Retailing Research: Assessment and Guidelines

Abstract

This study presents an evaluation of research diversity and rigor levels in the retail marketing literature in order to glean valuable insights for researchers. Retailing is a significant sub‐field within marketing, and occupies a large portion of the extant marketing literature. The study consists of a content analysis of 600 quantitative empirical articles in the top six marketing journals (i.e. Journal of Retailing, Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Research, Marketing Science and Journal of Marketing Research) over a 12‐year period. Over this period, the diversity and rigor of research design and data analytical methods were assessed across ten research sub‐communities of retail marketing research. The authors develop a measure for evaluating the rigor of research design and analytic techniques most commonly used in business research. The data reveal trends and areas for improvement in research design and reporting scholarly research.

Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Family Firm: Mapping the Field and Tracing a Path for Future Research

“…Hopefully, a comprehensive review may help identify what we know and what we should know about the EO within family firms. Additionally, literature reviews often highlight strengths and weaknesses within disciplines, provide examples of best practices to guide scholars in producing high-quality research, ratify the validity of findings, and deliver scientific evidence underpinning scholars’ advice to practitioners (Finnegan, Runyan, González-Padron, & Hyun, 2016).…”

Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here?

“…They did so for instance by subjecting extracted data to specific additional qualitative or quantitative analyses (e.g. Cheng, 2016; Finnegan et al., 2016) or by using conceptual frameworks, derived a priori , to guide and organize their SR (e.g. Kokkonen & Alin, 2015; Wong et al., 2013).…”

“…Far from embracing the different perspectives offered by grey literature, some authors explicitly chose to exclude such sources (e.g. Finnegan et al., 2016; Keupp & Gassmann, 2009; Mariano & Awazu, 2016), usually arguing that academic papers provide a more suitable and high‐quality coverage of the subject under review. Frequently they cited Podsakoff et al.…”

Guest editorial: a new dawn for qualitative service research

“…Rigor in academic research refers to "demonstrating a soundness regarding its theoretical and conceptual development, its methodological design and execution, its interpretation of findings, and its use of these findings in extending theory or developing new theory" (Zmud, 1996, p. xxxvii). Failure to preserve methodological rigor may lead to wrong empirical results and theoretical inferences, compromising our ability to develop knowledge and inform managers (Finnegan et al, 2016). In qualitative research, rigor can be demonstrated through transparency, which requires that researchers supply an audit trail outlining what they did, how they did it, and why they did it (including the researchers' reflexive position).…”