This issue of JAMS marks the end of my term as editor, though I will continue to haunt the journal in the next two issues with papers I have accepted and over a longer time as the papers I have published influence the field and impact thinking and practice in marketing. It has been an interesting and productive 3 years that I have immensely enjoyed. I have had the rare privilege of editing two of Marketing’s leading journals. I hope that I have done a better job as a result of my prior experience. I will miss the daily interaction with the extended set of colleagues that is a part of the routine of an editor. I have appreciated the contributions of authors and reviewers who have stimulated my own thinking and introduced me to so many new ideas. I have experienced the vicarious joy of authors whose papers I have accepted for publication, but I am most proud of the kind comments I have received from authors of papers I have rejected.
In thinking about what words I might share in my parting editorial statement I returned to a number of editorials I have offered in past issues of this journal and the
Journal of Marketing. I have used up much of what I have to say about the editorial process and I have already offered advice to authors regarding the enterprise of discovery and publication. I have addressed the role of intellectual communities and the place of journals in those communities (Stewart
1999) and the many factors that influence the quality of research and the likelihood of publication (Stewart
2002,
2007,
2008). I have also addressed the more general questions of what constitutes a “contribution” to the field (Ladik and Stewart
2008) and the role of theory and theoretical contributions in the marketing literature (Stewart and Zinkhan
2006). I hope these comments will continue to be useful to future generations of scholars.
Having already offered so many thoughts about the intellectual and empirical contributions in marketing and the publication process I had to think for a long time about what I wished to say in parting as editor of JAMS. It then occurred to me that the substance of a presentation I recently made on the topic of multi-method research would be a nice complement to my earlier commentaries. So, I will close with some thoughts about method and its role in discovery. I will punctuate my comments with the thoughts of others who have been significant contributors to the enterprise of science.
A part of the meaning of any individual empirical result is its relationship to prior research. In the words of Henri Poincare: “Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.” In describing the meaning and significance of empirical results it is important to consider how the finding itself and the methodology used fit a larger pattern: (1) How is the house described?; (2) How would the methods “stone” be described? and (3) What does the methods “stone” contribute?
Tests of hypotheses are often method bound. Therefore it is important to consider the relationship of method to hypothesis. Does a particular method bias findings in favor of a positive finding with respect to a given hypothesis? If a competition of theories is involved in a test of a hypothesis does the method employed favor one theory over another?
Although ambiguity is inherent in research, method can help resolve ambiguity. Use of different methods can produce convergent and complementary results. Such results increase confidence and make findings more compelling. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge, with honesty, the limitations imposed by method and the ambiguity these limitations create.
Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.