Marketing's Theory Practice gap

Methodology  

 

The methodology used was based on a factor analysis of marketing practitoners and marketing academics.  The sample contained 327 respondenets from an online survey posted on Qualtrix.  The survey used an amended version of the Hofer DEBQ personal epistemology questionaire.  From the instrument results a factor anlysis revealed a number of factors relating to how respondents viewed knowledge.  Group views on these factirs were compared using ANOVA.  This showed significant diferences on some factors between groups revealing an epistemic gap between academics and practitioners.  Of great inetrest was the emergence of a factor underpinned by an item structure indicating dialogue with practice.  This factor correlated positivly with academic movement toward practitioner epitemology suggesting that the dialgue plays a role in the gaps presence and in its closure. 

 

Interpretivism versus Positivism

Ontologically my approach suggests realist ontology. This is an empirical approach in which the discovery and explanation                                                                                                         of regularities can be explained using generalisable conclusions. This                                                                                                      ontological approach encompasses the two distinct paradigms of                                                                                                            interpretivism and positivism. As Niehave’s (2007) argues quoting Weber                                                                                                (2004), both assume that a ‘real world’ exists, external to human                                                                                                              cognition.  We can see how the two paradigms can be used together by                                                                                                  reflecting on their epistemological assumptions as shown in the table                                                                                                     opposite (Niehaves, 2006).  The seeming conflict between two                                                                                                                  paradigms (positivism and interpretivsm) is  resolved via post positivist                                                                                                  epistemological or methodological pluralism (Wildemuth, 1993,                                                                                                                Niehaves, 2007). Such resolution argues that no single paradigm               may be sufficient but that instead method should reflect the natur Hence my approach will be a cross sectional survey to explore whether twohold different   epistemic beliefs, using a validated, structured data collection instrument.  This questionnaire, Hofer’s DEBQ, will produce a set of factors for the sample –     academics and practitioners.   And this represents the use of a positivist approach. However the interpretation of these factors is deeply interpretive. Factor analysis produces         a number of intercorrelateditems (each item is a single question) and each group of such items forms a factor. Theinterpretation of these factors is deeply inductive and involves interpreting the collectivemeaning of the items loading on each factor (Williams, 2010). Whilst it is likely that the personal epistemologies of respondents are social constructs within a constructivist paradigm, this does not prevent exploration using a positivist method. However analysis of findings using an inductive approach to identify social constructs implies a constructivist epistemology and interpretivist paradigm. Hence the overall approach reflects a positivist paradigm research instrument but with a factor analytic analysis using an inductive interpretive framework to identify the underlying social constructs which create the individual epistemic underpinnings of practitioners and academics. Such an amalgamation of research paradigms is acceptable in a modernist pluralist epistemic approach.