دانلود مقاله سوگیری طرفداری در ادبیات بازاریابی سبز
چکیده
کلید واژه ها
1. مقدمه
2. پس زمینه
2.1. دلایل شک و تردید در انگیزه و جایگاه مقاله
2.2. نمونه گیری و طراحی تحقیق
2.3. گزارش نتایج و نتیجه گیری
3. روش
4. نتایج
4.1. انگیزه ها/موقعیت حمایت از GM
4.2. نمونه و طرح تحقیق
4.3. نتایج تحقیق و نتیجه گیری
5. بحث
6. نتیجه گیری
منابع
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Reasons for skepticism in article motivation and positioning
2.2. Sampling and research design
2.3. Results reporting and conclusions
3. Method
4. Results
4.1. GM advocacy motivations/positioning
4.2. Sample and research design
4.3. Research results and conclusions
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Declaration of Competing Interest
References
چکیده
سوگیری طرفداری با غلبه مقالات منتشر شده که از علل و پارادایم های مورد علاقه یک رشته دانشگاهی حمایت می کنند و در نتیجه عدم وجود نسبی سوگیری در مقابله با انتشارات شکاک/جعلی مشخص می شود. چنین عدم تعادلی بین مدافعان پارادایم/علت و شکاکان می‌تواند نشانه‌ای از یک فرآیند تحقیقاتی باشد که توسط یک تمایل علمی مشترک برای ایجاد نتایج حمایتی خراب شده است. پژوهش حاضر با یک چارچوب مبتنی بر تحلیل محتوا که سطح سوگیری حمایت از بازاریابی سبز (GM) را در بین 107 مقاله مرتبط GM از ژورنال‌های فهرست Financial Times (FT) بازاریابی و 9 موضوع ویژه مرتبط GM ارزیابی می‌کند، کمکی تجربی به ادبیات سوگیری طرفداری می‌کند. (SI). شواهد سوگیری گسترده حمایت از GM با فقدان تقریباً کامل مقالات شکاک / جعلی GM نشان داده می شود. امید است که این اولین بررسی تجربی سوگیری طرفداری در رشته بازاریابی الهام بخش بحث و تحقیق بیشتر در مورد این موضوع باشد.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
Advocacy bias is characterized by a preponderance of published articles that support an academic discipline’s favored causes and paradigms, and by the consequent relative absence of bias countering skeptical/falsifying publications. Such imbalance between paradigm/cause advocates and skeptics can be an indication of a research process that has been corrupted by a widely shared scholarly desire to generate supportive results. The current research makes an empirical contribution to the advocacy bias literature with a content analysis based frame- work that assesses the level of green marketing (GM) advocacy bias among 107 GM related articles from mar- keting’s Financial Times (FT) list journals and 9 GM related special issues (SI). Evidence of widespread GM advocacy bias is indicated by the almost complete lack of GM skeptical/falsifying articles. It is hoped that this first empirical examination of advocacy bias within the marketing discipline will inspire more discussion and research on the topic.
Introduction
Reducing the bias that is inevitable in almost all human endeavors is a key element of the scientific method ( Krimsky 2013; MacCoun 1998; Merton 1973), and the focus of the current research is advocacy bias, which is defined by scholarly devotion to a favored cause or paradigm that can corrupt the research process to yield supportive results (Duarte et al. 2015; Ioannidis 2005; Redding 2013). Such bias is typically attributed to the advocacy induced ‘blindness’ of scholars to the weak- nesses and faults of their favored cause/paradigm, and/or to the increasing politicalization and social activism of many academic disci- plines (Cofnas et al. 2018; Duarte et al. 2015; Redding 2013; Tierney 2021). Widespread advocacy is also thought to corrupt the research funding and peer review processes as biased gatekeepers give added scrutiny and more frequently reject skeptical proposals and manuscripts that unsympathetically address problem areas that could provide falsi- fying results and reveal the limitations of their favored cause/paradigm (Krimsky 2013; Ioannidis 2005; Grundmann 2011; Popper 2005).
Conclusion
Marketing’s success in generating great material wealth by effec- tively addressing the needs and desires of a growing world population has led to ever higher levels of consumption, which has also contributed to a variety of real sustainability problems that GM advocates seek to mitigate (Kotler 2011; Peattie and Peattie 2009). While the current re- view finds widespread advocacy across the GM articles published in marketing’s elite journals and special issues, it is important to note that GM advocacy does not mean that individual article results are irrelevant or invalid in addressing their particular sustainability issue, context and samples, but does mean that the overall relevance, validity, and limi- tations of the GM paradigm have not been established due to the lack of skeptical viewpoints, empirical challenges, and other-side comparisons.