www.Marketing-Thema.com

Hubbard, R. (2015). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. Sage Publications.

I’m reading this great book written by Hubbard a great marketing scholar about the current NHST paradigm in research. The author is defending the idea that we are producing « unreliable science » that is absolutely useless! Summarizes lots of evidence that the pervasive use of NHTS (Null Hypothesis statistical testing) is bad practice. The author suggests another model and defends the same ideas of Geoff Cumming about the new statistics based on confidence intervals instead of p values and open science in his book of 2013 Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge.

The book of Hubbard is a major contribution and alert toward the research community about the actual research paradigm that we can qualify as an « Ostrich politic » where publishers and academics waste ressources (time, money, effort) for advancing their careers through « fake or misleading » publications instead of seeking to change the system and to seek the truth! this is the noble objective of science, not citations, or rankings! We need a cummulative system that allows replication and integration of findings.

As expected no one is a prophet is his own country, like any established community, gatekeepers don’t like people who go against the mainstream doxa, and this book received little interest while it’s a major contribution and very urgent issue in academic research. Few are those who have the courage and honesty to say it loudly like the excellent positions taken by Barnett , or Kuntz , or Cumming ! but history will give credit to those who stood with a backbone for the truth.

I follow many groups in various disciplines, and this issue will be the TRUE CHALLENGE for the next years if we want to tackle the credibility of scientific research!

YB

James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian, the scholars behind the hoax

Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

We’ve been here before.

In the late 1990s, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics … read more here

In these videos, the authors explain the advantages of academic writing in plain text using markdown syntax. they also give a live demonstration of how writing in markdown works.

A simple example, to start with! Each time when in your bibliography or scientific work you cite 90% of the time authors from the north despite the fact that similar works are conducted in the south, you are committing an epistemicid! You are making other productions invisible and marginal by giving an exclusive legitimacy to only some circles of knowledge production.

Another example, is the Islamic tradition of the « halaqa » in producing knowledge and as a research and academic methodology. A form or method that existed in the Islamic Spanish era, and that no longer exists today in the academic world.

A definition according to Quora: « Its a systematic destruction of any indigenous knowledge base. Any knowledge which doesn’t converge with the perpetrator’s knowledge system. It doesn’t believe in fusion or exchange of knowledge but complete disregard of the other’s knowledge. »

Marketing science has developed a large array of research methods to tackle important questions for marketing management. These were recently summarized and illustrated in the Handbook of Marketing Analytics. But which method should be used for which question? Natalie Mizik and Dominique Hanssens will select three of the 2018-2020 MSI Research Priorities—to be announced at the Spring 2018 Board of Trustees Meeting—and review successful applications of various research methods to address these questions and invite audience comments.

Every two years, the Marketing Science Institute asks every MSI member company Trustee to provide input to help set priorities for the research that will guide activities for the next few years.

These priorities enable the Marketing Science Institute to engage in its most critical mission: aligning marketing science and practice in order to create materially better outcomes for marketers and the customers they serve.

2018-2020 Research Priorities

1. Cultivating the Customer Asset
2. The Evolving Landscape of Martech and Advertising
3. The Rise of Omnichannel Promotion and Distribution
4. Capturing Information to Fuel Growth
5. Organizing for Marketing Agility

You can download the PDF file here 

The scientific paper—the actual form of it—was one of the enabling inventions of modernity. Before it was developed in the 1600s, results were communicated privately in letters, ephemerally in lectures, or all at once in books. There was no public forum for incremental advances. By making room for reports of single experiments or minor technical advances, journals made the chaos of science accretive. Scientists from that point forward became like the social insects: They made their progress steadily, as a buzzing mass.

The earliest papers were in some ways more readable than papers are today. They were less specialized, more direct, shorter, and far less formal. Calculus had only just been invented. Entire data sets could fit in a table on a single page. What little “computation” contributed to the results was done by hand and could be verified in the same way.

More here