Paradigm, methodology and method: intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship

Abstract

AbstractThe 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.