The role of method: some parting thoughts from a departing editor

The famed physicist Werner Heisenberg observed: “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Our mode of inquiry influences our results. Our theories and assumptions, whether explicit or implicit, influence where we look, how we look and how we interpret what we see. In marketing, the view from the perspective of a consumer is often very different from the view of a marketing decision maker. What consumers tell us in a long, open-ended interview is often different from what we learn in a structured survey. Observation of behavior may reveal things about a consumer that neither an interview or survey reveals. Such differences do not suggest that any method is better or worse than another. Rather, it suggests the degree to which “findings” tend to reflect method. “Facts” and “truths” are often bound by method. This is the reason it is so dangerous to rely on a single, “preferred” method for discovery. The use of multiple methods to investigate the same phenomenon can create robust “facts” and “truths.” Common and complementary empirical findings that emerge from different methods of study are far more compelling than single method outcomes. Papers that use multiple methods produce stronger results, larger contributions, and greater impact.

The prolific science fiction writer Isaac Asimov stated that “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny ...’.” What he meant by this is that discovery is most profound when it involves something unexpected rather than a finding of something one is already looking for. A finding one is looking for is already heavily method laden and usually involves a high degree of structure in the investigative process. The greater the structure, the less surprising the outcomes in most cases. Surveys and experiments seldom produce really surprising outcomes. This is why observation and qualitative methods are important in marketing. These types of methods do not produce definitive outcomes but they often suggest interesting avenues for research. “That’s funny” often is the spark of the most important research contributions. These methods also help identify boundaries, limitations, and complexities in phenomena. It is for this reason that I have long encouraged my students and colleagues to use qualitative tools to inform their research and use them routinely as I develop ideas for research projects. This said, the “Eureka!” moment is still very important and rigorous test must also accompany great discoveries.

While serendipity can produce exciting new insights, those insights will not be compelling until they are transformed into hypotheses that can be submitted to testing by an appropriate method. Thomas Huxley noted that “The great tragedy of Science (is) the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Hypotheses are important. They make testing possible, and successful tests make findings more compelling. Unfortunately, in marketing many hypotheses are tested against the null hypothesis, that is, a test for a difference of some type versus no difference. Such tests are useful but not very interesting. Comparison of hypotheses to the null is far less interesting than a competition among competing hypotheses suggested by the literature. Marketing is such a sufficiently mature discipline that there exist alternative theories and explanations that can be pitted against one another. Such contests are far more informative and interesting than contests involving the null because they can offer support to one of several competing theories and thereby advance theory development.

P. L. Berger has observed that “In science as in love, too much concentration on technique can often lead to impotence.” Some of the least interesting papers I have reviewed have offered an immaculate research design, sophisticated analysis, and pristine results. The problem with these papers is that the substance of the research was lost in the description of the method and one was left wondering whether it was the research design and methodology that produced the results. Influential research focuses on the substantive contribution(s) and avoids losing the substantive contribution in the eloquence of methodology. The contribution of a paper is not assessed by the methodology used but by the substantive findings that are identified.

An important and often neglected element in the methodology of the enterprise of discovery is communication. No matter how important the phenomenon or problem, failure to communicate will bury the idea. Sir Francis Darwin noted that “In science the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not the man to whom the idea first occurs.” Communication is often an afterthought and persuasive writing does not characterize many of the papers that journals receive. Communication is hard work but its principles are not difficult: (1) clearly state what is new, (2) describe in detail what was done and why in terms of method, and (3) be clear about what the new finding means for theory, practice or general knowledge in the field.

A weak explanation of the meaning of empirical findings is common in papers submitted for publication. Sir William Bragg observed that “The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” New facts are important, but they become more compelling when placed in the context of an answer to the question “What do the findings mean?” The answer to this question should include a discussion of the relationship of the new finding(s) to prior research and to theory. It should also address whether method is an influential factor in determining the empirical findings and what the method of research implies about the findings.

The outcomes of research often create as many new questions as they answer. For this reason ambiguity is a part of the discovery process. It is also what makes the role of researcher interesting and ongoing. Those seeking certainty probably need to find a less ambiguous vocation. In the words of M. Catmill: “As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life—so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.”

Marketing is an applied discipline. We cannot lose sight of linking what we do to practice. However, this does not mean that the research enterprise should be driven by a search for answers to immediate issues and practical answers to management questions. Such answers are the domain of consultants and applied marketing researchers. The best academic research will find application in due course, but a narrow definition of the research question, a dimension of the research method, will assure a narrow research finding. The goal of discovery is breakthrough insight. In the words of Marie Curie:

“We must not forget that when radium was discovered no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals. The work was one of pure science. And this is a proof that scientific work must not be considered from the point of view of the direct usefulness of it. It must be done for itself, for the beauty of science, and then there is always the chance that a scientific discovery may become like the radium a benefit for humanity.”