دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی پیش بینی عینی نتایج دقیق در بازاریابی کسب و کار به کسب و کار - امرالد 2018

ABSTRACT

This chapter identifies research advances in theory and analytics that contribute successfully to the primary need to be filled to achieve scientific legitimacy: configurations that include accurate explanation, description, and prediction
prediction here refers to predicting future outcomes and outcomes of cases in samples separate from the samples of cases used to construct models. The MAJOR PARADOX: can the researcher construct models that achieve accurate prediction of outcomes for individual cases that also are generalizable across all the cases in the sample? This chapter presents a way forward for solving the major paradox. The solution here includes philosophical, theoretical, and operational shifts away from variable-based modeling and null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) to case-based modeling and somewhat precise outcome testing (SPOT). These shifts are now occurring in the scholarly business-to-business literature.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Fig. 4 is a visual summary of core features in the current dominant logic in B-to-B research and core features of a true new paradigm now in the introduction stage in the discipline. The features appear in two Venn diagrams in Fig. 4 to represent the configurational nature of research paradigms
rather than a house-of-cards, research paradigms include self-reinforcing joined-at-the-hip forces. Replacing one bad feature alone is insufficient. All features need replacing or dramatically improving by a truly new research paradigm. The evolutionary rise in the current dominant variable-based mostly descriptionand explanation-focused logic in B-to-B research occurred in the 1950s and continued to the end of the 20th century. The revolutionary introduction of a true, new, case-based paradigm focusing mostly on description, explanation, and prescription is occurring in the second decade of the 21st century. Growth is expanding rapidly now (2015
2019) in the number of scholarly articles featuring the true new paradigm (Roig-Tierno, Gonzalez-Cruz, & Llopis-Martinez, 2017).

Twenty paradigm shift-catalysts appear in the center of Fig. 4. These shiftcatalysts are essays and mostly non-NHST SPOT-empirical studies that include features and full-blown expositions of a true new research paradigm. The 20 catalysts include Hubbard’s (2016) thorough documentation of the corrupt practices of NHST
the foundational analytical stance of the current dominant logic. Because NHST is a bad science practice, the editor of one prestigious scholarly journal (Basic and Applied Social Psychology) announced that authors of all future articles accepted for publication would need to remove reports of statistical significance tests before their articles were published (Trafimow & Marks, 2015). NHST is more than a tool for data analysis; the use of NHST suggests embracing a theoretical stance. Unfortunately, the current dominant logic and use of correlations, F-tests, MRA, and SEM nurture the perspective that NHST is the only scientific testing procedure worthy of using. Reading Hubbard (2016) is very helpful for overcoming such a sad and wrong conclusion. Woodside (2017) expands on Hubbard’s (2016) call to use “statistical sameness” outcome testing by presenting several studies that do just that.