IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v66y2013i9p1377-1388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research

Author

Listed:
  • Hubbard, Raymond
  • Lindsay, R. Murray

Abstract

Complaints about the value of academic business research in addressing real world issues are common. A change in research paradigms—from significant difference to significant sameness—is necessary to improve this situation. The present paper challenges research orthodoxy as representing poor scientific practice and advocates an entirely different paradigm based on a sophisticated replication tradition following a meta-methodology of critical realism. A comprehensive analysis across philosophical, methodological, and statistical literatures develops this argument.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1377-1388.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:66:y:2013:i:9:p:1377-1388
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296312001361
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unknown, 1978. "Farm Income Statistics," Statistical Bulletin 154292, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. George A. Akerlof, 2009. "How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1175-1175.
    3. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Baumgarth, Carsten & Hubbard, Raymond & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Replication research's disturbing trend," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 411-415, April.
    4. Keuzenkamp, H.A. & McAleer, M., 1994. "Simplicity, scientific inference and econometric modelling," Other publications TiSEM dabcc476-15d7-4177-a2f5-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. William H. Starbuck, 1993. "Keeping A Butterfly And An Elephant In A House Of Cards: The Elements Of Exceptional Success," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 885-921, November.
    6. Wells, William D, 2001. "The Perils of N = 1," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 494-498, December.
    7. Bayarri M.J. & Mayoral A.M., 2002. "Bayesian Design of," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 56, pages 207-214, August.
    8. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
    9. A. S. C. Ehrenberg & J. A. Bound, 1993. "Predictability and Prediction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 156(2), pages 167-194, March.
    10. R. Murray Lindsay, 1994. "Publication System Biases Associated with the Statistical Testing Paradigm," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 33-57, June.
    11. Patrick Barwise, 1995. "Good Empirical Generalizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 29-35.
    12. Lindsay, R. Murray, 1995. "Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: An alternative criterion of adequacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 35-53, January.
    13. Chris Chatfield, 1995. "Model Uncertainty, Data Mining and Statistical Inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(3), pages 419-444, May.
    14. Easton, Geoff, 2002. "Marketing: a critical realist approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 103-109, February.
    15. Hubbard, Raymond & Vetter, Daniel E., 1996. "An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 153-164, February.
    16. Keuzenkamp,Hugo A., 2000. "Probability, Econometrics and Truth," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521553599, September.
    17. George Box, 1994. "Statistics and Quality Improvement," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 157(2), pages 209-229, March.
    18. Easley, Richard W. & Madden, Charles S. & Dunn, Mark G., 2000. "Conducting Marketing Science: The Role of Replication in the Research Process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 83-92, April.
    19. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    20. Jerker Denrell, 2003. "Vicarious Learning, Undersampling of Failure, and the Myths of Management," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 227-243, June.
    21. Bill McKelvey, 1978. "Organizational Systematics: Taxonomic Lessons from Biology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(13), pages 1428-1440, September.
    22. Hunter, John E, 2001. "The Desperate Need for Replications," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 149-158, June.
    23. Frank M. Bass, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations and Marketing Science: A Personal View," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 6-19.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kilsheimer Eastman, Jacqueline & Iyer, Rajesh & Babin, Barry, 2022. "Luxury not for the masses: Measuring inconspicuous luxury motivations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 509-523.
    2. Reed, W. Robert, 2019. "Takeaways from the special issue on The Practice of Replication," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 13, pages 1-11.
    3. Mwesiumo, Deodat & Halpern, Nigel & Budd, Thomas & Suau-Sanchez, Pere & Bråthen, Svein, 2021. "An exploratory and confirmatory composite analysis of a scale for measuring privacy concerns," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 63-75.
    4. Ryan, James C. & A Tipu, Syed A., 2022. "Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    5. Sadok El Ghoul & Omrane Guedhami & Robert Nash & Ajay Patel, 2019. "New Evidence on the Role of the Media in Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 1051-1079, February.
    6. Davidsson, Per, 2015. "Data replication and extension: A commentary," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 12-15.
    7. Kapferer, Jean-Noël & Valette-Florence, Pierre, 2019. "How self-success drives luxury demand: An integrated model of luxury growth and country comparisons," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 273-287.
    8. Gray, Rob & Milne, Markus J., 2015. "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it? Of method and madness," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 51-66.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peterson, Robert A. & Merunka, Dwight R., 2014. "Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 1035-1041.
    2. Uncles, Mark D. & Kwok, Simon, 2013. "Designing research with in-built differentiated replication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1398-1405.
    3. Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "The significant difference paradigm promotes bad science," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1393-1397.
    4. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    5. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Baumgarth, Carsten & Hubbard, Raymond & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Replication research's disturbing trend," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 411-415, April.
    6. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2013. "Research with In-built replications: Comment and further suggestions for replication research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1406-1408.
    7. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    8. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    9. Rick Wicks, 2012. "Assumption Without Representation: The Unacknowledged Abstraction from Communities and Social Goods," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 57(1), pages 78-95, May.
    10. Ryan, James C. & A Tipu, Syed A., 2022. "Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    11. Rick Wicks, 2011. "Markets, Governments—," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 65-96.
    12. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2021. "Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 577-594.
    13. Riefler, Petra & Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, 2009. "Consumer cosmopolitanism: Review and replication of the CYMYC scale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 407-419, April.
    14. Peter M. Spiegler & William Milberg, 2013. "Methodenstreit 2013? Historical Perspective on the Contemporary Debate Over How to Reform Economics," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 311-345, November.
    15. Wicks, Rick, 2011. "Assumption without representation: the unacknowledged abstraction from communities and social goods," MPRA Paper 51674, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2013. "The Ideal Economy: A Prototype," MPRA Paper 51582, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Trafimow, David & Hyman, Michael R. & Kostyk, Alena, 2020. "The (im)precision of scholarly consumer behavior research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 93-101.
    18. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2010. "Replications of forecasting research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-8, January.
    19. Grant Allan & Gioele Figus & Peter G. McGregor & J. Kim Swales, 2021. "Resilience in a behavioural/Keynesian regional model," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(4), pages 858-876, June.
    20. van den Hauwe, Ludwig, 2007. "Did F. A. Hayek Embrace Popperian Falsificationism? A Critical Comment About Certain Theses of Popper, Duhem and Austrian Methodology," MPRA Paper 6067, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:66:y:2013:i:9:p:1377-1388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.