Publishing in JSM Part 1: making a contribution

Citation

Russell-Bennett, R. and Baron, S. (2015), "Publishing in JSM Part 1: making a contribution", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0106

Publishing in JSM Part 1: making a contribution

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Services Marketing, Volume 29, Issue 3

The question of “what makes a theoretical contribution” is discussed around water coolers, tea rooms, at conferences and in journal articles. It is a question that worries research students and causes seasoned scholars to stop and ponder. As new editors of the Journal of Services Marketing, it is also a question that we have needed to consider when setting our editorial direction and strategy. In the next few editorials, we will deal with the topic of publishing in the journal; what we want and what we do not want.

One of the major reasons a manuscript is desk-rejected by us is lack of a clear theoretical contribution and a primary factor underpinning this is the assumption that a new context equals a new contribution. The natural extension of this assumption is around the contribution of a replication study. So, in this editorial, we will first deal with the nature of theoretical contribution, discuss context and, finally, discuss replications.

What is a theoretical contribution in the services marketing field?

A theory needs to contain four elements; factors, relationships between the factors, explanation of the underlying mechanisms of the relationships and the contextual boundaries (range of the theory) (Whetton, 1989). Thus, a theoretical contribution needs to contain something new in at least one of these elements but what, then, do we mean by new? When considering the first element of the factors, adding an extra variable to a model is not a theoretical contribution unless that new variable changes our understanding in a significant way about the relationships. An example of what would not be considered a theoretical contribution in this journal would be adding a variable, such as attitudes, to a theory on customer complaints, where the relationships in that theory do not significantly change compared to previous research. Alternatively, an example of a theoretical contribution made by adding factors would be the study by Brady et al. (2006) on the relative effect of outcome quality on satisfaction compared to functional and environmental service quality. In this study, the question asked was “what if these views of service quality are not universally applicable across industries” (Brady et al., 2006), and posed that for valence-oriented service industries (where, if the outcome is good or bad determines satisfaction more than the service quality), the service quality–satisfaction relationship operated differently when the factor of valence was added.

The second element of relationships is an area where we typically see the most theoretical contribution made. This is an explanation of how two or more factors are related in a way that has not been considered before. For example, understanding that the relationships between employee and customer satisfaction is uni-directional is a theoretical contribution, as shown by >Jeon and Choi (2012). The third element is the underlying mechanisms that explain the relationships. An example, in the services field, would be using the role theory to explain how the interactive aspects of a service encounter occur (see Broderick, 1998). Finally, the last element is the contextual boundaries whereby some or all of the previous three elements changes as the result of a different context. An example is the finding that the hedonic/utilitarian context changes the relationship between the factors of service quality and satisfaction (Jiang and Wang, 2006). It is this final element that we will discuss in the remaining section of the editorial, as it is the reason for most of the desk-rejections in the Journal of Services Marketing.

When does context matter?

Context refers to the external environment that is the setting for an event, occasion, idea or action (Oxford Dictionary, 2010). For services marketing research, context generally means a difference of the following types:

• demographic group (e.g. gender, age, income and country);

• service type (e.g. professional and personal);

• service channel (e.g. virtual and face-to-face); and

• industry (e.g. banking, automotive, hairdressing and education).

One of the major failings of rejected papers is the lack of ability to explain to/convince the reader as to why the new context matters, and why new research is needed to test an existing theory/model/framework in this new context. Many authors simply state that “no prior research has been done in the [insert demographic/service type/service channel/industry context here] and this research addresses this gap”. One of the most memorable quotes that was said at an Academy of Management conference was “stating that a gap exists is the best of the worst reasons to do research”. Unless filling that gap is important, then the mere existence of a gap is not sufficient reason to undertake research.

So when, then, does context matter? For a new context to offer a theoretical contribution, there must be something different about the other three elements of theory compared to prior research. The context, say the banking industry, must fundamentally change either the factors that constitute the theory, or the relationships between those factors, or offer a different explanation of why those relationships occur. Simply taking an existing theory/model/framework, say services quality, collecting data in a new [insert context here] and finding that the factors, relationships and explanation are the same as the hundreds of prior studies means that the manuscript will get no further than the desk review. Recently, the importance of context for value co-creation has been highlighted by Chandler and Vargo (2011), who pose that context influences “how resources can be drawn upon for service” (Chandler and Vargo, 2011, p. 40).

Whetton (1989) nicely sums up the notion of context and theoretical contribution in his seminal Academy of Management Review article by saying:

Conversely, applying an old model to a new setting und showing that it works as expected is not instructive by itself […] theorists need to learn something new about the theory itself us a result of working with it under different conditions. That is, new applications should improve the tool, not merely reaffirm its utility (Whetton, 1989, p. 493).

Now, some might argue that applying old models and finding the same findings as prior research is a replication study and replication studies are sorely needed in the marketing research field. The next section discusses this notion.

How are replications a theoretical contribution?

Scholars in marketing have long expressed concern about the lack of replication studies in the field with the rate falling between 1994 and 2007 (Evanschitzky et al., 2007). So, why are replications important? Successful replications provide reliability of results, while failures identify areas for future research, and, in particular, a replication with extension help “generalize the findings beyond the original context” (Hubbard and Armstrong, 1994, p. 236). So what is a replication and how is it different to a replication with extension? Hubbard and Armstrong define it as “a duplication of a previously published empirical study that is concerned with assessing whether similar findings can be obtained upon repeating the study” (Hubbard and Armstrong, 1994, p. 236). A replication with extension is defined as “a duplication of a previously published empirical research project that serves to investigate the generalizability of earlier research findings” (Hubbard and Armstrong, 1994, p. 236).

A good example of replication study on relationship benefits was research undertaken by Patterson and Smith (2001), where they replicated and extended Gwinner et al.’s (1998) work by investigating the perceived benefits of long-term relationships in South-East Asia compared to Gwinner et al.’s (1998) US context. Patterson and Smith (2001) confirmed the original study’s findings (there are three benefit types), however, found distinct variations due to the Asian nature of the context in the impact of the type of service, switching costs and attractiveness of alternatives.

The quandary for marketing scholars is the need to meet the editorial criteria of new/original/unique findings with the discipline need for replication. If a scholar does an exact replication of an original study and has the same findings – does this meet the criteria of newness? Only if there was need for the replication. For example, one could argue that with the hundreds of studies that exist on the service quality and satisfaction relationship, there is no need to replicate this further. However, for a new relationship, a new scale or where the context may change the findings, then a replication would offer merit.

Conclusion

So, for the Journal of Services Marketing, we are seeking articles that make a theoretical contribution that add something new with one of the elements of theory. We welcome submissions to JSM on the topic of contribution and services marketing research, which continue to push the boundaries of our field.

In terms of the editorial approach of the Journal of Services, we will accept replication studies but only if:

• there is a stated and convincing justification as to why it is important to carry out a replication, and

• there are new insights resulting from the replication.

Rebekah Russell-Bennett and Steve Baron

References

Brady, M.K., Voorhees, C.M., Cronin, J.J. Jr and Brian, L. Bourdeau (2006), “The good guys don’t always win: the effect of valence on service perceptions and consequences”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 83-91.

Broderick, A.J. (1998), “Role theory, role management and service performance”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 348-361.

Chandler, J.D. and Vargo, S.L. (2011), “Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-49.

Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R. and Armstrong, S. (2007), “Replication research in marketing revisited: a note on a disturbing trend”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 411-415.

Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Relational benefits in service industries: the customer’s perspective” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-114.

Hubbard, R. and Armstrong, J.S. (1994), “Replications and extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite contrary”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 233-248.

Jeon, H. and Choi, B. (2012), “The relationships between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 332-241.

Jiang, Y. and Wang, C.L. (2006), “The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction: the moderation of service contexts”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 211-218.

Oxford University Press (2010), Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, London.

Patterson, P. and Smith, T. (2001), “Relationship benefits in service industries: a replication in a Southeast Asian context”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 425-443.

Whetton, D. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.

Corresponding author

Rebekah Russell-Bennett can be contacted at: rebekah.bennett@qut.edu.au