Diversity and Rigor Trends in Retailing Research: Assessment and Guidelines

• Author: Jonghan Hyun,Tracy Gonzalez‐Padron,Rodney C. Runyan,Carol Finnegan
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12059
• Published date: 01 January 2016
• Date: 01 January 2016

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, 51–68 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12059

Diversity and Rigor Trends in Retailing

Research: Assessment and Guidelines

Carol Finnegan, Rodney C. Runyan,1,2 Tracy Gonzalez-Padron3

and Jonghan Hyun4

University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA, 1School of

Family and Consumer Sciences, Texas State University, 601 University Dr, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA,

2Department of Marketing, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK, 3University of

Colorado-Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA, and 4Kent Stat e

University, 218E Rockwell Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA

Corresponding author email: rcr56@txstate.edu

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 mar-

keting literature. The study consists of a content analysis of 600 quantitativeempirical

articles in the top six marketing journals (i.e. Journal of Retailing, Journalof Marketing,

Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 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-communitiesof 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.

Introduction

Within the business domains, scholars conduct regu-

lar critical assessments of the state of research. Rep-

resentative articles include examples in marketing

(Dahlstrom et al. 2008), management (Aguinis et al.

2009; Blackburn and Kovalainen2009; Scandura and

Williams 2000) and international business (Hult et al.

2008). Research literature assessments are useful for

at least four reasons: (1) theoretical models require

rigorous hypothesis testing for knowledge develop-

ment; (2) reviews of current practices often highlight

strengths and weaknesses within the discipline and set

quality expectations; (3) reviews often provideexam-

ples of best practices to guide scholars in producing

high-quality research products; and (4) reviews en-

sure the validity of findings and provide scientific

evidence underpinning our advice to practitioners.

This study assesses the state of empirical retail-

ing literature in marketing. Although research on

retailing encompasses many social science fields (e.g.

economic geography studies offerexciting extensions

to retailing), the focus of this study is on retailing

research as a sub-domain in the field of marketing.

Retailing is an important sub-domain of marketing

(Runyan 2008), as it spans the boundary in the mar-

keting channel betweenproducer and consumer (Levy

and Weitz,2011). The 600 empirical articles included

in this study represent almost 20% of all empirical

articles published in the top six marketing journals

during the 12-year period, supporting the importance

of considering the sub-domain separately.

Several reviews of retailing have been published

in the past decade (e.g. Brown and Dant 2008, 2009;

Dant and Brown 2008; Grewal and Levy 2007; Run-

yan and Droge 2008). Though these studies con-

tributed to the advancement of retailing methods, they

focused exclusively either on articles in the Journal

of Retailing (JR) or on a specific sub-set of retail-

ing (e.g. small retailers; Runyan and Droge 2008).

C2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

52 C. Finnegan et al.

To our knowledge, no cross-journal methodological

assessments of the retailing sub-domain have been

published to date, presenting retailing scholars with

an opportunity for assessment and reflection. Given

the potential to advance theory and practice, retailing

scholars would benefit from a systematic review of

diversity and rigor of that body of knowledge. Read-

ers should note that we use the term ‘diversity’ in the

context of research topics, analytical tools and meth-

ods (e.g. Tellis et al. 1999), and not in the context of

gender, ethnic or cultural diversity as the word often

appears in the trade press and news media.

Although the necessity for diverse and rigor-

ous research is well established in the literature

(Aguinis et al. 2010; Dahlstrom et al. 2008; Scan-

dura and Williams 2000; Tellis et al. 1999), the as-

sumptions that scholarly works are becoming more

rigorous and contribute to the greater understand-

ing of business phenomena are largely untested. Ev-

idence of this assumption is revealed from review

articles warning about the myopic pursuit of rigor

(e.g. Lehmann et al. 2011) to articles providing ways

to overcome methodological weaknesses (e.g. Mal-

hotra et al. 1999). While acknowledging Lehmann et

al.’s (2011) concerns about the danger of a singular

pursuit of rigor at the cost of other important research

objectives, there are no studies that attempt to de-

fine and measure rigor in retail marketing research.

The danger is that the failure to preserve method-

ological rigor may lead to erroneous empirical results

and theoretical inferences, compromising our abil-

ity to accumulate knowledge and inform managers

(Shugan 2007). Similarly, the failure to publish di-

verse content across a variety of conceptual domains

stifles theory development and impedes our ability to

respond to new managerial challenges. Without fresh

ideas and innovative approaches, our work becomes

close-looped discussions that only serve to reinforce

existing scholarly paradigms (Miller 2006). There-

fore, periodic reviews are necessary to examine re-

search diversity and rigor trends to guide scholars in

future research.

This study focuses on three research questions: (1)

Is retailing research diverse? (2) Is retailing research

rigorous? (3) Are diversity and rigor trends constant

over time? While there have been several reviews

that looked at diversity in citations and procedures

in marketing research (e.g. Brown and Dant 2008;

Dahlstrom et al. 2008; Telliset al. 1999), no previous

work has focused on diversity in retailing research

across sub-domains. In addition, we develop an ob-

jective measure of rigor, the first application of its

kind in marketing. Consequently, by identifying the

extent of variety and rigor, the review serves to en-

courage and facilitate knowledge developmentwithin

retailing scholarship.

Methods

To evaluate retailing articles across a diverse set of

journals, we begin by defining our domain. We adopt

Levy and Weitz’s (2011, p. 6) definition of retailing as

‘a set of business activities that add value to the prod-

ucts and services sold to consumers for personal or

family use’. This provides wide latitude in identifying

retailing research.

We undertake a systematic review of empirical ar-

ticles, consistent with recent suggestions on diversity

and methodological rigor in the marketing and man-

agement literature (e.g. Scandura and Williams 2000;

Short et al. 2002). To answer our research questions,

we perform a content analysis of 600 quantitative

retail articles in six high-quality marketing journals

(i.e. Journal of Retailing (JR), Journal of Market-

ing (JM), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-

ence (JAMS), Journal of Consumer Research (JCR),

Marketing Science (MS) and Journal of Marketing

Research (JMR).

Data collection

We focus solely on peer-reviewed, empirical articles

in marketing journals. By excluding literature re-

views, concept articles and mathematical modeling

articles (i.e. articles that did not subsequently test

some hypothesis or validate the proposed model),

we reduce research type confounds, allowing us

to draw clearer and more useful guidelines (Hult

et al. 2008). Non-journal outlets of knowledge, in-

cluding books, book chapters and other non-refereed

publications are not part of this study because of a

lack of validated review processes and limited impact

on new knowledge in the field compared with jour-

nals (e.g. McWilliams et al. 2005). Consequently, we

consider journal articles to be an accurate snapshot

of high-quality retailing research in the marketing

field.

The study considers the leading marketing journals

that consistently focus broadly on assorted retailing

topics as opposed to journals that have occasional

special issues on retailing or focus on a narrow aspect

of retailing, such as e-commerce. Multiple reviews

identify six journals, (JR, JM, JAMS, JCR, MS and

C2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.