ISBM Research
Q u a r t e r ly
Winter 2008
Volume 1, Issue 1
in this issue . . .
Welcome
W
e are pleased to bring you Volume 1, Issue 1, of the ISBM Research
Quarterly. This publication will serve as the ISBM’s academic newsletter,
with the aim of helping communicate with and connecting academic
and Ph.D. students around the world who are interested in the B2B domain.
Although ISBM is the publisher, we hope that readers will actively contribute and
become engaged in providing content and moving along discussions.
Welcome ...................................... 1
Report on IPSS (ISBM Ph.D. . ...... 2
Seminar Series) . . .
ISBM Data Resources Program.... 2
ISBM Educational Resources . ...... 3
Program
Gary L. Lilien
ISBM Dissertation Support .......... 3
Award and 2007 Winners
Each Newsletter will have features on ISBM programs, reported by a key
individual.
ISBM Business-to-Business . ....... 4
Ph.D. Student Research Camp
2007 and Upcoming in 2009
From the Membership . ................ 4
2008 Academic Conference.......... 5
Cross-Sectional Versus ................ 5
Longitudinal Survey Research:
Concepts, Findings, and
Guidelines
The structure will vary from issue to issue, but most issues will have a focal
article centering on one piece of B2B research, selected for its broad interest
and applicability. In this issue, we are pleased to feature Aric Rindfleisch’s
summary of his work on “Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Survey Research,”
a topic that is under continual scrutiny by researchers, journal editors, and their
reviewers. We feel that Aric’s thoughts on this matter will help provide a coherent
perspective into this important issue. If you have comments on this article (or
thoughts for future articles), please pass them on.
In this issue we feature . . .
Ph.D. Camp: Abbie
Griffin, ISBM Ph.D. Camp Director, reports on the very
successful 2007 Camp and her plans for the next camp in 2009.
Johnson introduces the ISBM Data Resources
Program, a resource that Jean has developed and that we hope will be of great
value for B2B researchers looking for advice on appropriate data resources. Qiong Wang will be taking
over the management of this activity in 2008, now that Jean has finished with its initial development.
We thank Jean for her great effort in bringing this resource to the fore. Please let us know how we can
make this resource more useful for you.
Raj Grewal
Data Resources Program: Jean
Educational Resources Program: Matt
Aistrich introduces the ISBM Educational Resources Program.
Matt provides more detail, but the general idea is that the ISBM would like to be a sharing-point for the
best educational material and practices on B2B marketing globally, and Matt will be spearheading that
effort. Pass your material, as well as lessons learned, on to Matt, as he requests in his article.
IPSS News: The
CONTACT INFORMATION
very successful ISBM Ph.D. Seminar Series (IPSS), as conceived and executed by Raj
Grewal, enters its fourth term of operation. Raj discusses the IPSS vision, accomplishments to date, and
plans for the coming years. He also seeks your suggestions and feedback.
Ph.D. Dissertation Support Competition: We
Research Director
Gary L. Lilien, ([email protected])
Associate Research Director
Rajdeep Grewal, ([email protected])
Executive Director
Ralph Oliva, ([email protected])
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
Smeal College of Business
The Pennsylvania State University
484 Business Building
University Park, PA 16802
USA
+1-814-863-2782 • www.isbm.org
had 12 finalists out of 43 total submissions for the 2007
competition. See our article for the complete list of finalist and winners.
February 2008 Semiannual ISBM Members Meeting Preview: The
ISBM semiannual meeting, held
February 26–27 in Tampa, Florida, will focus on “Value Merchants: Demonstrating and Documenting
Superior Value in Business Markets.” Built around the issue of implementing value-based marketing, the
program will feature a mix of presentations by leading academics and practitioners. Ralph Oliva, the
ISBM’s Executive Director, provides more detail and an invitation to attend.
2008 Academic Meeting Preview: The
ISBM will be hosting its Biennial Academic Conference August
6–7, 2008 (immediately preceding the Summer AMA Educator’s Conference), in San Diego, CA. The
venue is the new business facility at the Rady School of Business, University of California at San Diego;
the conference will begin at noon on August 6 and continue through the afternoon on Thursday,
continued on page 5
Pa g e 2
Report on IPSS (ISBM Ph.D. Seminar Series) . . .
B
Ph.D. Web Based Seminars
ackground: During the ISBM Ph.D. Camp
in August 2005 in San Francisco, we learned
from doctoral students that they sensed a
dearth of B2B faculty and suffered limited B2B
doctoral courses. They added that these limits
constrained the options for students who might
want to pursue a Ph.D. in the area. The ISBM
Web-Based Ph.D. Seminar Series (IPSS) was
designed to help overcome this resource constraint
and encourage more young scholars to pursue
doctoral degrees in the area of B2B markets.
The IPPS solution offers 8 to 10 session Ph.D.
courses on diverse B2B topics, taught in real time using a Web-based
interface. These serious Ph.D. courses demand an admissions process
and associated grading system. For IPSS, the grade determines whether
the student will be allowed to take additional courses. Some schools have
registered doctoral students in a “special study” course through their home
institution, providing local course credit along with the grade the student
receives in the course. This latter process has benefited both the student
and the home institution. Admitted students pay small tuition fees; limited
scholarships are available to defray these costs.
Course Offerings to Date: In
Fall 2006, Professor Ajay Kohli taught the first
IPSS course on Theory Construction with great success. In Spring 2007,
IPSS offered two courses: Sales Management, taught by Professor Barton
Weitz, and Social Network Analysis, taught by Professor Christophe Van
den Bulte. In addition, IPSS offered two courses in Fall 2007: Qualitative
Research Methods by Professor Abbie Griffin and Strategic Brand and
Business Performance Measurement by Professors Raji Srinivasan and Raj
Srivastava. The two courses being taught in Spring 2008 are Channel
Management by Professors Mark Bergen and George John and Innovation
Strategy by Professor Gerry Tellis.
Going Forward. The
current IPSS plan is to offer four to six courses per
year, most in a two-year cycle. Plans for Fall 2008 include a repeat of
Professor Kohli’s course on Theory Construction, as well as a new offering,
Organizational Buyer Behavior and Market Mechanism Design, co-taught
by Professors Sandy Jap and Wes Johnston. As we go to press, we also are
considering the option of a year-long “topics” course, taught by a range of
instructors who would provide short introductions to research topics in their
specific areas of expertise.
The feedback from the Ph.D. students taking these courses has been
resoundingly positive, and we eagerly seek your input as we adapt the IPSS
offerings to serve the course needs of B2B doctoral students. For more
information about IPSS, please see http://www.smeal.psu.edu/isbm/ipss.html
or e-mail me at [email protected].
Raj Grewal
Assistant Research Director
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
ISBM Data Resources Program
T
he Data Resources Program (DRP), initiated in
the Summer 2005, responded to an identified
need to increase researchers’ access to data they
could use to study B2B questions. Such a connection
is critical for not only the proliferation of managerially
relevant B2B research but also the growth of the B2B
research field. The DRP was conceived essentially as a
meta-data project, in that it would provide data about
existing data; inform researchers about the availability,
types, and characteristics of data accessible from public
sources; and offer details about the availability, extent,
Jean Johnson
types, and characteristics of data potentially accessible
for research through private commercial sources.
As such, the DRP currently houses information about more than 100
potential data sources, with new sources being added constantly. Users may
review various data sources through keyword searches or data type searches, as
shown in the menu bar.
In addition to linking researchers to data sources, the DRP is interactive. It
includes a feedback mechanism so that the research community may share
experiences and knowledge specific to the various data sources that members
have evaluated and used, which will further enhance researchers’ effectiveness.
As shown in the menu bar, a general feedback mechanism facilitates the
evolution of the DRP as a research resource and improves its functions as a
research resource. The DRP can be accessed at http://drp.smeal.psu.edu/. We
invite researchers to visit the site to review and access various data sources. In
addition, we encourage you to share both your responses to the site and your
experiences with the specific data sources you have accessed and reviewed.
Jean Johnson
Gardner O. Hart Professor of Marketing
Washington State University
Pa g e 3
Announcing: ISBM’s 17th Annual
Dissertation Support Award
Competition Winners
T
he ISBM is pleased to announce that the winners of the 2007 Dissertation Support Award
Competition are:
Outstanding Submission Winner:
Denish Shah of the University of Connecticut
“Enhancing Marketing Productivity in the Manufacturer-Distributor Setting of Business Markets”
Advisor: V. Kumar
Other Support Winners:
Sujan M. Dan of Texas A&M University
“An Empirical Examination of the Role of Consortium, Partner and Format Characteristics in the Market Acceptance of Formats”
Advisors: Alina Sorescu and Rajan Varadarajan
Renna Jiang of the University of Chicago, GSB
“Structural Estimation of A Moral Hazard Model: An Application to Industrial Selling”
Advisor: Pradeep K. Chintagunta
Now in its 17th year, the ISBM’s Business Marketing Doctoral Support Award Competition is designed
to support up to five candidates in accredited doctoral programs from around the world. Dissertations
in any area of business-to-business (industrial) marketing or in any of the methodological areas that
support advances in business marketing are fair game as are applications from students in economics,
management science, organizational psychology, statistics, anthropology and other disciplines whose
developments help advance our understanding of the operation of the business marketplace.
The award consists of:
• Up to $7,500 in financial assistance to be used for travel, conference attendance, data collection, and
other expenses of conducting and presenting the results of the research.
• Assistance, as needed, in gaining the cooperation of both ISBM member firms and non-member firms
for data, interviews, etc.
• Unlimited use of databases held by or accessible to the ISBM, as needed.
In addition, in some years there is an outstanding submission; if awarded, that submission receives the
ISBM Dissertation Proposal Prize, an additional award of $2,500.
The 2007 competition attracted 43 submissions of which 12 were named finalists. In addition to the
winners, honorable mentions were received by:
Anthony K. Asare, Univesity of Massachusetts, Amherst
Pelin Bicen, Texas Tech University
Abhijit Guha, Duke University
Douglas E. Hughes, University of Houston
Jan Lakotta, ESCP-EAP European School of Management
Vinh Nhat Lu, University of Adelaide
Matt O’Hern, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Pankaj Setia, Michigan State University
Jacqueline van Beuningen, Maastricht University
ISBM EDUCATIONAL
RESOURCES PROGRAM
Supporting the teaching
of business-to-business
marketing is a significant
portion of ISBM’s mission.
The ISBM Educational
Resources Program is a new
initiative that aims to provide
an avenue for university
educators to share
teaching-related resources
Matt Aistrich
and best practices.
We will support information sharing for any
courses related to business markets: business
marketing, sales management, channels, new
product development, and so forth. Furthermore,
supporting materials will be available for
courses at all levels of university education—
undergraduate, master’s, doctoral, and executive
education.
Currently, we are designing Web pages to add
to ISBM’s Web site (www.isbm.org) that will
provide these essential resources. Rather than
mere lists of titles, we plan to offer a wealth
of materials, organized by both course and
resource type, that are easily searchable and that
contain descriptions of the resources, as well
as assessments of their suitability for particular
applications.
Educators new to a particular course will find help
in getting started, and experienced educators will
find information about the latest cases and videos,
ideas for interesting classroom exercises and
projects, and more. We hope these resources also
help educators create effective and interesting
courses, increase the attractiveness of business
marketing coursework, and produce students who
are better prepared to meet the demands of the
workforce.
We are very interested in including in the
Educational Resources Program any materials
or advice that might help improve teaching. Of
particular interest are
• Course syllabi;
• Recommendations of textbooks, cases, and simulations;
• Links to excellent online resources; and
• Sources of videos
for courses related to business markets.
For details on the 2008 Competition see http://www.smeal.psu.edu/isbm/isbmres/award and for a list of
past winners see http://www.smeal.psu.edu/isbm/isbmres/award/winners
Congratulations to all!
Gary L. Lilien
Research Director
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
If you have materials or information that you would
be willing to share, or questions or suggestions
about the Program, please e-mail Matt at
[email protected].
Matt Aistrich
Educational Resources Director
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
Pa g e 4
ISBM Business-to-Business Ph.D. Student Research Camp
2007 and Upcoming in 2009
T
hirty-three Ph.D. students and 26 faculty
members from around the world attended
the Second Biennial B2B Ph.D. Camp at
Georgetown University’s “Car Barn” MBA teaching
facility during the two days prior to the AMA
Summer Educators’ Conference. The purpose of
holding the Camp is to increase the number and
quality of scholars studying business-to-business
markets and marketing by informing Ph.D.
students about the area early in their studies and
Abbie Griffin
then continuing to serve their domain needs during
all stages of their dissertation process. The overall
objective thus is to help students develop a better understanding of the
barriers and rewards involved in pursuing a Ph.D. in business-to-business
markets, as well as provide them with connections to potential mentors,
committee members, peers, and future coauthors.
This Camp kicked off on a Thursday morning with a four hour seminar by
Ajay Kohli, Isaac Stiles Hopkins Chair in Marketing, Goizueta Business
School, Emory University. His discussion of theory construction provided a
synopsis version of his IPSS Seminar
Series Class.
one-third of the student participants. Over drinks and hors d’oeuvres that
evening, students met the other instructors and received introductions to
the topics of the IPSS Series.
On Friday morning, six winners of the ISBM Dissertation Proposal contest
presented the research that won them their victory: “Patterns of Information
Disclosure by Prospective Customers: An Experimental Simulation in
Second Life” by Mary Caravella, Assistant Professor in Residence, University
of Connecticut; “The Impact of eBusiness Infusion on Reseller Effectiveness:
The Moderating Role of Channel Governance” by Talai Osmonbekov,
Assistant Professor, University of Southern Mississippi; “Market Foresight
Capability” by Mike McCardle, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Haworth
College of Business, Western Michigan University; “Open Innovation–A
Dynamic Capability in the NPD Process” by Rosanna Garcia, McCarthy
Family Assistant Professor of Marketing, Northeastern University; “From
Inertia to Innovation” by Yinghong (Susan) Wei, Assistant Professor,
William S. Smears School of Business, Oklahoma State University; and
“How Potential Conflict Drives Channel Structure: Concurrent (Direct and
Indirect) Channels” by Alberto Sa Vinhas, Assistant Professor of Marketing,
Goizueta Business School, Emory University.
Thursday afternoon brought
introductions, both of the
participants and for the supporting
organizations (ISBM, MSI, and the
Georgia State University Center for
Business and Industrial Marketing),
followed by the first of two facultyfacilitated roundtables, the purpose
of which was to provide constructive
feedback on the research proposals
Faculty and Ph.D. Students, 2007 Ph.D. Camp at Georgetown
written and submitted by about
Friday afternoon initiated sessions on Business-to-Business
Research, Getting Published, Managing Your Career, and
another set of research review roundtables. Students and faculty
mixed and matched to enjoy local eateries.
The next Ph.D. Student Research Camp will take place before
the 2009 AMA Summer Educators’ Conference. Watch
ELMAR, this newsletter, and the ISBM Web site for further
information, coming in late 2008.
Abbie Griffin
Royal L. Garff Presidential Chair in Marketing
University of Utah
From the Membership
D
iscerning customer needs, driving growth, better
understanding and computing value —These
are the top three things we’re hearing about
from our membership as the “key challenges and core
capabilities” that B2B marketers will need to address
as they look toward 2010.
To help things along as we move (all too rapidly)
toward the end of the decade, we’re planning to unveil
the outcomes of a major research undertaking by two
ISBM Fellows, Dr. Jim Anderson of Kellogg and Dr.
Ralph Oliva
Jim Narus of Wake Forest, working together with Dr.
Nirmalya Kumar from London Business School, at our upcoming Members’
Meeting, February 26–27, 2008, in Tampa, Florida.
We cordially invite any and all researchers from the academic community
to attend. This year’s event promises to be an interesting and important
meeting, with nine new cases being presented that will illustrate, expand,
and flesh out the approaches that Drs. Anderson, Kumar, and Narus have
outlined in their great new book, Value Merchants: Demonstrating and
Documenting Superior Value in Business Markets.
At our meeting, Jim Anderson will lead the way, outlining the step-by-step
approach and framework for implementing value-based business marketing,
along with the real “tricks of the trade” for getting it done. Practitioners
themselves will be presenting their approaches, tools, obstacles they have had
to address and overcome, and, finally, the results they are seeing.
For those of you focusing your attention on this space, the leads, insights,
and frameworks for thinking that you are sure to encounter should be quite
valuable.
Please note that the top three trends we have outlined continue to represent
important focus points for ISBM-funded research. Those of you working on
research in these areas who require support of any kind should connect with
me or with Gary Lilien right away.
If we can be of help to you in your business-to-business research or teaching,
don’t hesitate to call on us.
Ralph Oliva
Executive Director
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
Pa g e 5
Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Survey Research:
Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines
I
f you are reading
this article, chances
are that you have
conducted at least one
cross-sectional survey
in your academic
career. You are not
alone. Cross-sectional
Aric Reindfleich
surveys have been a
staple research technique for B2B scholars
for several decades. Much of the existing
empirical knowledge in the B2B domain is
the product of this data collection approach.
The popularity of cross-sectional surveys
is also reflected in the broader marketing
literature; 94% of the empirical survey studies
published from 1995 to 2005 in the Journal
of Marketing and the Journal of Marketing
Research employed this type of data. Given
its prominence, many B2B scholars have
expressed dismay about perceptions of
increased scrutiny on cross-sectional survey
research. For example, in a recent e-mail, an
anonymous senior scholar lamented, “I am
very troubled that the powers that be may be
emphasizing the negatives of one approach
(i.e., survey research) while overlooking the
difficulties of approaches they favor.” During
ISBM ACADEMIC CONFERENCE
2008: aDVANCES IN b-TO-B
MARKETING
August 6 - 7, 2008
University of California,
San Diego
Rady School of
Management
Otterson Hall
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0553
U.S.A.
Rady School
the past few years, we have heard similar
sentiments expressed in conversations with
various B2B colleagues. On the basis of
these conversations, as well as our collective
experience as both survey researchers and
journal reviewers, we believe that the majority
of this increased scrutiny focuses on two key
concerns about the validity of cross-sectional
survey research: (1) the risk of common
method variance (CMV) bias and (2) the
method’s ability to provide causal inferences.
These two issues are closely interrelated (i.e.,
CMV bias limits causal inferences) and
present substantial risks to the validity of
cross-sectional survey research.
As a means of reducing these two validity
threats, editors and reviewers commonly
suggest three alternative data collection
strategies: (1) multiple respondents (e.g.,
brand managers reporting on the predictors
and vice presidents reporting on the
outcomes), (2) multiple methods (e.g., survey
data for the predictors but archival data for
the outcomes), or (3) multiple time periods
(e.g., collecting predictors at time 1 and
outcomes at time 2). Our research examines
the efficacy of this latter strategy. We focus
on multiple time periods (i.e., longitudinal
Welcome continued
data) because this data collection strategy
is applicable to most research contexts and
commonly is mentioned as an important
avenue for further research in many B2B
studies. Specifically, our research was designed
to answer the following question: “Under
what conditions is longitudinal data an
appropriate solution for addressing concerns
about CMV bias and causal inferences?”
When we began our research, we were
surprised to find that the role of longitudinal
data in addressing these two validity threats
has received surprisingly scant attention
in the marketing literature. Thus, to
establish a conceptual understanding of
the value of longitudinal data, we have
examined a broad base of research across
a wide variety of disciplines, including
management, economics, sociology,
psychology, philosophy, and epidemiology.
On the basis of this examination, we offer
a conceptual framework that establishes the
role of longitudinal data in terms of reducing
CMV bias and enhancing causal inference.
This conceptualization suggests that the
value of longitudinal data is considerably
overstated and that this approach is capable
of addressing the two validity threats only in
continued on page 6
from page 1
August 7, to coordinate with the beginning of the AMA conference. Raj Grewal and Gary Lilien
will be co-chairing the conference. We provide some additional details and a call for contributions.
For complete conference details visit http://www.smeal.psu.edu/isbm/seminars/events/aca08.html
In future issues, we also will publish your correspondence, announcements, and commentaries on
these and other topics. We hope you will contact us and suggest ways to make this newsletter better
and more responsive to your needs.
All the best.
Gary and Raj
Gary L. Lilien
Research Director
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
Raj Grewal
Assistant Research Director
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
Conference Objectives:
• Develop new ideas and new ways to address
the most pressing issues at the interface of the
B-to-B academic and practitioner communities
Conference Program Chairs and the Conference Committee are currently organizing
this year’s agenda. Updates and complete conference details can be found at the
conference website http://www.smeal.psu.edu/isbm/seminars/events/aca08.html
• Generate new research approaches and ideas
If you would like to present a session, send your abstract (300 words max)
electronically to the Conference Coordinator, Lori Nicolini at [email protected] by
March 15, 2008.
• Provide a forum for interation amongst the
world’s leading B-to-B researchers
Rady School
Pa g e 6
Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal
Survey Research: continued from page 5
a very limited range of conditions.
We put our conceptualization to a rigorous
empirical examination, including a
comparative examination of the degree of
CMV bias and causal inference for two B2B
survey data sets that contain both crosssectional and longitudinal data, as well as a
Monte Carlo simulation that encompasses
a broader range of empirical parameters.
The results of this collective examination
reveal that though longitudinal surveys
offer some advantages in reducing the two
validity threats, a cross-sectional approach
appears adequate in many situations. We
leverage these findings by offering a set of
specific guidelines that B2B scholars and
practitioners can employ to enhance the
validity of their cross-sectional survey data:
1. Be Concrete: Researchers can reduce
topic, we perceive our work as an effort to
initiate a conversation regarding the value
of various data collection techniques and
hope that these efforts will stimulate other
B2B scholars to join in on this important
conversation.
Aric Rindfleisch
Associate Professor of Marketing
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Reference
Interested readers can access the full article at:
Rindfleisch, Aric, Alan J. Malter, Shankar
Ganesan, and Christine Moorman (2007),
“Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Survey
Research: Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines.”
ISBM Working Paper 02–2007, Institute for the
Study of Business Markets, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802.
American Philosophical Quarterly, 2 (October),
245–264.
Malholtra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim, and
Ashutosh Patil (2006), “Common Method
Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of
Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past
Research,” Management Science,
52 (December), 1865–1883.
Marini, Margaret Mooney and Burton Singer
(1988), “Causality in the Social Sciences,”
Sociological Methodology, 18, 347–409.
Mill, John Stuart (1843), A System of Logic.
New York: Harper.
Podsakoff, Philip M. and Dennis Organ (1986),
“Self-Reports in Organizational Research:
Problems and Prospects,” Journal of Management,
12 (4), 531–544.
Suggested Readings
For additional insights regarding common
method variance or causal inferences, please see
the following readings:
______, Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee,
and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common
Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Recommended
Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5),
879–903.
2.Education Matters: CMV bias is likely
Bunge, Mario (1979), Causality and Modern
Science. New York: Dover.
Rothman, Kenneth J. (1976), “Causes,” American
Journal of Epidemiology, 104, 587–592.
3.Seek Diversity: Surveys that employ a
Cote, Joseph A. and Ronald Buckley (1987),
“Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance:
Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation
Studies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24,
315–318.
Sobel, Michael E. (1996), “An Introduction
to Causal Inference,” Sociological Methods &
Research, 24 (February), 353–379.
CMV bias by employing constructs that
are concrete and externally oriented (e.g.,
new product development speed) versus
those that are abstract and internally
oriented (e.g., new product development
satisfaction).
to be less pronounced among subjects
who are mature and high in educational
attainment.
diverse mixture of measurement formats
and scales are
less likely to exhibit CMV bias.
4. Build your Base: A well-developed
theoretical foun-dation can enhance causal
inference by providing guidelines for
construct selection, specifying a direction
of causal flows, and suggesting moderators
and mediators for eliminating competing
theories.
5. Clarify your Argument: Most B2B theories
can apply to how outcomes either differ
among entities that possess different levels
of a predictor or are influenced by changes
in a predictor within a set of entities.
Cross-sectional data are clearly more
suitable for the former type of argument
than for the latter.
By recommending these guidelines, we
attempt to provide both B2B scholars and
practitioners with a set of decision tools
for determining when to invest their time
and money in longitudinal data collection.
Rather than being the last word on this
Doty, D. Harold and William H. Glick (1998),
“Common Methods Bias: Does Common
Methods Variance Really Bias Results?”
Organizational Research Methods, 1 (October),
374–406.
Einhorn, Hillel J. and Robin M. Hogarth (1986),
“Judging Probable Cause,” Psychological
Bulletin, 99 (January), 3–19.
Goldthorpe, John H. (2001), “Causation,
Statistics, and Sociology,” European Sociological
Review, 17 (1), 1–20.
Granger, C. W. J. (1980), “Testing for Causality:
A Personal Viewpoint,” Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, 2, 329–352.
Hill, Austin Bradford (1965), “The Environment
and Disease: Association or Causation?”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine,
January 14, 295–300.
Hume, David (1740), A Treatise on Human
Nature. London: Thomas Longman.
Mackie, J. L. (1965), “Causes and Conditions,”
Van Bruggen, Gerrit, Gary Lilien, and Manish
Kacker (2002), “Informants in Organizational
Marketing Research: Why Use Multiple
Informants and How to Aggregate Responses,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (November),
469–478.
COMMENTS... IDEAS...
We would love to hear from you. If you wish
to comment on this article (or have thoughts
for future articles), please pass them on. Your
suggestions will make the newsletter better and
more responsive to your needs. Please email your
correspondence to:
Newsletter Editor
Lori Nicolini ([email protected])
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
Smeal College of Business
The Pennsylvania State University
484 Business Building
University Park, PA 16802
USA
+1-814-863-2782 • www.isbm.org