Showcasing the diversity of service research

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make two main contributions: first, showcase the diversity of service research in terms of the variety of used theories and methods, and second, explain (post-publication) success of articles operationalized as interest in an article (downloads), usage (citations), and awards (best paper nomination). From there, three sub-contributions are derived: stimulate a dialogue about existing norms and practices in the service field, enable and encourage openness amongst service scholars, and motivate scholars to join the field. Design/methodology/approach A mixed method approach is used in combining quantitative and qualitative research methods while analyzing 158 Journal of Service Management (JOSM) articles on several criteria such as their theory, methodology, and main descriptive elements (e.g. number of authors or references) and then using automated text analysis (e.g. investigating the readability of articles, etc.). Findings The results show that the JOSM publishes a large variety of articles with regard to theories, methods of data collection, and types of data analysis. For example, JOSM has published a mixture of qualitative and quantitative articles and papers containing firm-level and customer-level data. Further, the results show that even though conceptual articles create the same amount of interest (downloads), they are used more (citations). Research limitations/implications This paper presents many descriptive results which do not allow for making inferences toward the entire service research discipline. Further, it is only based on one service research journal (JOSM) through a five-year span of publication. Practical implications The results have a number of implications for the discipline that are presented and discussed. Amongst them are that: the discipline should be more open toward conceptual articles, service research shows an imbalance toward theory testing, there is more potential to work with transactional data, and writing style should be more accessible (i.e. readable). Originality/value This paper is the first to conduct an in-depth analysis of service research articles to stimulate dialogue about common publishing practices in the JOSM and to increase the openness of the field.

New directions for service research: refreshing the process of theorizing to increase contribution

“…However theories-in-use should not only include practitioners but also include reflective customers and other reflective stakeholders. This offers some departure from the traditional theoretical concerns found in much current service research, which tends to focus on either service provider actions or service recipient experiences (Benoit et al, 2017). Theories-inuse focuses on the interactive and self-reflexive nature of service encounters from multiple perspectives and focuses on explanatory power rather than predicting outcomes.…”

“…They provide the foundations for understanding and explanation. As noted by Benoit et al (2017), Service-Dominant (SD) Logic is the most commonly used general theoretical approach in service research.…”

“…They provide the foundations for understanding and explanation. As noted by Benoit et al (2017), service-dominant (SD) logic is the most commonly used general theoretical approach in service research. However, there are other choices for service researchers such as structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), social constructivism (Latour and Woolgar, 1989) and evolutionary theory (Dennett, 1995).…”

“…He went on to say that: "too much research is stuck in the middle neither being firmly based in real-world data nor reaching a sufficient level of abstraction." Benoit et al's (2017) recent review of articles published in the Journal of Service Management shows academic research has yet to meet Gummesson's challenge. The review shows service research is fragmented and is largely based on numbers of single, qualitative case studies and quantitative studies, with little attention to the issue of verification of theory or how theory informs practice.…”

Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain

“…We systematically combined developments in the engagement literature with developments in service-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008, 2016) to create guidelines for AE. We chose S-D logic not only because it is foundational to understanding actor interactions in networks but also because it is the most commonly used theoretical approach in service research (Benoit et al 2017). S-D logic aligns with both recent CE research (e.g., Hollebeek, Srivastava, and Chen 2016; Kumar et al 2017) and recent AE research (e.g., Chandler and Lusch 2015; Jaakkola and Aarikka-Stenroos 2018; Storbacka et al 2016).…”