Spatial and temporal transferability: Structurationism as the relationship marketing meta-theory

John Nicholson, Adam Lindgreen, Philip Kitchen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to apply pragmatic and practical perspectives to the transferability of research findings by examining the potential of structuration to serve as the relationship marketing meta‐theory.

Design/methodology/approach
– The paper revisits the advanced subjectivist critique of functionalism as the dominant research paradigm before challenging the apparent fortification of the interpretivist paradigm and, in so doing, highlights interpretivism's weaknesses when dealing with social structures.

Findings
– With the proposed model, relationship marketing researchers, using structuration theory, can recognize the temporal and spatial specificity – and thereby transferability – of interactions and relationships. Structuration is academically rigorous and pragmatic, because it avoids the distraction of the largely academic paradigm wars.

Research limitations/implications
– By addressing the often‐noted spatial and temporal limitations of relationship marketing research, this research responds to calls for longitudinal research. The model offers the potential for examining historical interactions and relationships to gain insight into the constraining and enabling forces of social structures.

Practical implications
– The use of a multi‐paradigm perspective is more pragmatic than a single paradigm investigation. Using structuration as that multi‐paradigm perspective, a relationship marketing researcher can gain greater insight into the spatial and temporal specificity and transferability of research findings. Researchers thus may assess the limitations of implementing marketing practice on the basis of the findings they gain from one space and time context in a different space and time context.

Originality/value
– A paper discussing structuration is a rarity among marketing literature. This paper is the first to outline the potential use of structuration as the meta‐theory in relationship marketing research.
LanguageEnglish
Pages187-207
Number of pages21
JournalQualitative Market Research
Volume12
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Paradigm
Structuration
Metatheory
Transferability
Marketing research
Specificity
Social structure
Interaction
Longitudinal research
Structuration theory
Design methodology
Functionalism
Marketing practices
Research paradigms
Marketing
Interpretivism

Cite this

@article{0981f8bdfb7d4a5b82aa2d437fce052a,
title = "Spatial and temporal transferability: Structurationism as the relationship marketing meta-theory",
abstract = "Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to apply pragmatic and practical perspectives to the transferability of research findings by examining the potential of structuration to serve as the relationship marketing meta‐theory.Design/methodology/approach– The paper revisits the advanced subjectivist critique of functionalism as the dominant research paradigm before challenging the apparent fortification of the interpretivist paradigm and, in so doing, highlights interpretivism's weaknesses when dealing with social structures.Findings– With the proposed model, relationship marketing researchers, using structuration theory, can recognize the temporal and spatial specificity – and thereby transferability – of interactions and relationships. Structuration is academically rigorous and pragmatic, because it avoids the distraction of the largely academic paradigm wars.Research limitations/implications– By addressing the often‐noted spatial and temporal limitations of relationship marketing research, this research responds to calls for longitudinal research. The model offers the potential for examining historical interactions and relationships to gain insight into the constraining and enabling forces of social structures.Practical implications– The use of a multi‐paradigm perspective is more pragmatic than a single paradigm investigation. Using structuration as that multi‐paradigm perspective, a relationship marketing researcher can gain greater insight into the spatial and temporal specificity and transferability of research findings. Researchers thus may assess the limitations of implementing marketing practice on the basis of the findings they gain from one space and time context in a different space and time context.Originality/value– A paper discussing structuration is a rarity among marketing literature. This paper is the first to outline the potential use of structuration as the meta‐theory in relationship marketing research.",
keywords = "Relationship marketing, Social structure",
author = "John Nicholson and Adam Lindgreen and Philip Kitchen",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1108/13522750910948789",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "187--207",
journal = "Qualitative Market Research",
issn = "1352-2752",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Spatial and temporal transferability : Structurationism as the relationship marketing meta-theory. / Nicholson, John; Lindgreen, Adam; Kitchen, Philip.

In: Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2009, p. 187-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spatial and temporal transferability

T2 - Qualitative Market Research

AU - Nicholson, John

AU - Lindgreen, Adam

AU - Kitchen, Philip

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to apply pragmatic and practical perspectives to the transferability of research findings by examining the potential of structuration to serve as the relationship marketing meta‐theory.Design/methodology/approach– The paper revisits the advanced subjectivist critique of functionalism as the dominant research paradigm before challenging the apparent fortification of the interpretivist paradigm and, in so doing, highlights interpretivism's weaknesses when dealing with social structures.Findings– With the proposed model, relationship marketing researchers, using structuration theory, can recognize the temporal and spatial specificity – and thereby transferability – of interactions and relationships. Structuration is academically rigorous and pragmatic, because it avoids the distraction of the largely academic paradigm wars.Research limitations/implications– By addressing the often‐noted spatial and temporal limitations of relationship marketing research, this research responds to calls for longitudinal research. The model offers the potential for examining historical interactions and relationships to gain insight into the constraining and enabling forces of social structures.Practical implications– The use of a multi‐paradigm perspective is more pragmatic than a single paradigm investigation. Using structuration as that multi‐paradigm perspective, a relationship marketing researcher can gain greater insight into the spatial and temporal specificity and transferability of research findings. Researchers thus may assess the limitations of implementing marketing practice on the basis of the findings they gain from one space and time context in a different space and time context.Originality/value– A paper discussing structuration is a rarity among marketing literature. This paper is the first to outline the potential use of structuration as the meta‐theory in relationship marketing research.

AB - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to apply pragmatic and practical perspectives to the transferability of research findings by examining the potential of structuration to serve as the relationship marketing meta‐theory.Design/methodology/approach– The paper revisits the advanced subjectivist critique of functionalism as the dominant research paradigm before challenging the apparent fortification of the interpretivist paradigm and, in so doing, highlights interpretivism's weaknesses when dealing with social structures.Findings– With the proposed model, relationship marketing researchers, using structuration theory, can recognize the temporal and spatial specificity – and thereby transferability – of interactions and relationships. Structuration is academically rigorous and pragmatic, because it avoids the distraction of the largely academic paradigm wars.Research limitations/implications– By addressing the often‐noted spatial and temporal limitations of relationship marketing research, this research responds to calls for longitudinal research. The model offers the potential for examining historical interactions and relationships to gain insight into the constraining and enabling forces of social structures.Practical implications– The use of a multi‐paradigm perspective is more pragmatic than a single paradigm investigation. Using structuration as that multi‐paradigm perspective, a relationship marketing researcher can gain greater insight into the spatial and temporal specificity and transferability of research findings. Researchers thus may assess the limitations of implementing marketing practice on the basis of the findings they gain from one space and time context in a different space and time context.Originality/value– A paper discussing structuration is a rarity among marketing literature. This paper is the first to outline the potential use of structuration as the meta‐theory in relationship marketing research.

KW - Relationship marketing

KW - Social structure

UR - http://www.emeraldinsight.com/loi/qmr

U2 - 10.1108/13522750910948789

DO - 10.1108/13522750910948789

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 187

EP - 207

JO - Qualitative Market Research

JF - Qualitative Market Research

SN - 1352-2752

IS - 2

ER -