Abstract
The intellectual integrity, trustworthiness and diversity of consumer scholarship depend on researchers accounting for the methodological (philosophical) underpinnings of their work. The discussion is predicated on the assumption that many scholars do not clearly differentiate between methodology and method. To address this issue, the paper distinguishes between these two concepts, identifies four axioms of methodologies, identifies and describes two overarching research paradigms (positivism and post-positivism), contrasts quantitative/qualitative with positivistic/post-positivistic, and positions consumer scholarship with three dominant research methodologies: scientific, interpretive and critical. Suggestions are offered about what various actors can do to better ensure responsible consumer scholarship through methodological accountability.
Introduction
Knowingly or not, scholarship intended to generate new knowledge, in each of the natural, social and human sciences, is informed by research paradigms. Within the academy, it is common knowledge that a paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline like consumer studies. Each paradigm is accompanied with attendant methodologies (assumptions about knowledge, values, reality and logic, to be discussed shortly). As a caveat, this paper is not about changing paradigms, the prevailing patterns of thought within a science or discipline (Kuhn, 1962); rather, it is about being conscious of which paradigm and attendant methodologies are being applied when conducting and evaluating research.
Recommendations and concluding comments
Because research is the fundamental cornerstone upon which sound theory is transformed into effective practice and vice-versa, it is important that scholars articulate the methodological, philosophical foundations upon which their research is based (Kim, 2003). Consumer scholars will need help with this academic enterprise. Some rudimentary and fairly obvious recommendations are now tendered to further the agenda informing this paper. First, for the consumer field in general, college and university degree programmes need to develop and deliver research methodology courses to augment the ubiquitous research methods courses. These could be called Consumer Research Literacy courses to offset the confusion surrounding the difference between methodology (philosophy and ideology) and methods (techniques and procedures). Second, consumer research textbook editors and authors could provide clearer distinctions between the two concepts, thereby socializing new entrants to the field of the importance of methodological savviness. Third, conference organizers could arrange for in-servicing on the topic.
